$96,529 Was The Request, With No Reporter’s Transcript And No Abuse Of Discretion Sealing The Conclusion.
Nasey v. Fell Holdings LLC, Case No. A175452 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2026) (unpublished) involved 2 1/2 years of contentious real estate litigation where five defendants finally obtained judgment on the pleadings against a plaintiff breaching a settlement agreement with a contractual fees clause. The prevailing defendants requested fees of $96,529 based on 2024-2025 hourly rates of $755 and $810 for one attorney and $745 and $810 for a second attorney. Plaintiff opposed, principally arguing the hourly rates were too high. A retired L.A. judge considered the fee motion, awarding defendants $72,441 at respective rates of $755 and $810. Plaintiff appealed the amount of the fee award.
The appellate court affirmed. It initially found that the lack of a reporter’s transcript was fatal, but found no abuse of discretion based on the paper pleadings record. The defense did present detailed attorney declarations and invoices which justified the awards. That the fee matter was decided by a retired judge out of the San Francisco litigation venue failed to show the judge lacked experience to adjudicate the fee motion or resolve conflicting testimony on Bay Area hourly rates.