The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration.
Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as Tres Caminos, LP v. MGP XI US Properties LLC, Case No. D085539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) demonstrates. It also shows the broad discretion given to a lower court to apportion fees or not when adjudicating fee motions.
In this one, Plaintiff sued Defendant at different litigation stages on both contract/noncontract claims relating to whether other tenants’ lease provisions impacted Plaintiff, with some of the claims dismissed at the demurrer stage and the rest dismissed following defendant’s successful summary judgment motion. Defendant filed a fees motion, with the lower court awarding defendant apportioned fees in a reduced amount. The lower court ordered defendant to file a supplemental declaration relating to allocation, which was done but not served on Plaintiff. The lower court awarded fees of $314,824.28 after review and acceptance of the defense supplemental fee declaration.
On appeal, the 4/1 DCA affirmed most of the award but remanded because Plaintiff should have had a due process opportunity to receive and respond to the defense’s supplemental fee declaration. The appellate panel found that the apportionment formulas used by the lower court were discretionary and appropriate, with the Defendant not needing to provide an alternative apportionment for purposes of obtaining fees as a matter of law. (Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist., 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 689 (2000).) Also, counsel’s declaration describing hourly rates, time worked by timekeepers, and other details was sufficient fee substantiation. Even though the judge hearing the fee motion was different than the judge deciding the substantive motions, the appellate court reviewed the fee determination through an abuse of discretion standard although it has more latitude in gauging whether discretion was abused. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 615-616 (2010).) On the due process point, the parties did stipulate what occurred with respect to the supplemental declaration was error, and the appellate court agreed in remanding the matter.