Second District Affirms Lower Court Determinations in the “Wild One.”
Who says that unpublished decisions lack drama and all of emotions that go with litigation, even in posttrial attorney’s fees proceedings. Not us, and the next case backs us up on this conclusion.
Lu v. Grewal, Case No B201355 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 8, 2008) (unpublished) involves a remanded case where plaintiff prevailed upon retrial, with a court awarding her $138,124.73 in damages and found she was the prevailing party for purposes of an attorney’s fees award. That is where the fun really begins (and not just because this website focuses on these issues).
Plaintiff submitted a costs memorandum seeking fees of $469,214.21 and costs of $20,317.40, but made no fee motion. (BLOG OBSERVATION—There are no typos here.) Losing defendants filed an opposition and objections to the costs memorandum, both as to the costs and fee requests. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court requested further briefing, chastising both sides for procedural irregularities and lack of detailed information. Plaintiff did file supplemental documentation, seeking a total of $528,910.72 in fees and costs. (BLOG OBSERVATION—Still no typos.) More objections, more papers, and finally a hearing.
The trial court carefully analyzed the billings, allowing some in total, cutting some in half, disallowing some, and doing other reductions on other requests.
Eventually, the trial court awarded plaintiff a total of $259,120.81 in attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants were unhappy, appealed, and lost.
Notwithstanding plaintiff’s failure to file an attorney’s fees motion, the Court of Appeal found no prejudicial error. The trial court had considerable discretion to request additional briefing and set a procedure to ensure proper decision making. Because both sides were given added opportunities to correct deficiencies, no prejudice flowed from the trial court’s actions.
The appellate panel found no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s fee award. “The court eliminated amounts for duplicative work, eliminated amounts for inflated work hours, and struck ineligible cost items from the attorneys’ requests” (such as block billed entries), reducing by almost half the fees plaintiffs requested “upon such factors such as duplication, excessive hours expended, and lack of documentary support.” (Slip Opn., at p. 8.) The Court of Appeal did not find the reduced award excessive given that it encompassed work for two trials and an appeal. (Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1134 (2000).)
Finally, in a curious twist of fate, plaintiff’s attorney filed an attorney’s lien against his client’s recovery from defendants subsequent to entry of judgment in the matter. Both sides opened fire about the propriety of his attorney’s lien, but the appellate court refused to evaluate their contentions because they were never put before the trial court. Absent intervention in the action by the attorney, the lien claim had to be decided in a completely independent action. (Brown v. Superior Court, 116 Cal.App.4th 320, 327, 330 (2004).)
Plaintiff had to be content with the trial court’s award of about half of her requested $529,000 in fees. (BLOG OBSERVATION—The fees award was almost double the base compensatory damage recovery, confirming yet again that attorney’s fees are the tail that wags the litigation dog, as our Mission Statement is a testament to.)