No Apportionment Required Because Alter Ego Claims Were Involved On Both Causes Of Action; Assertion That Hourly Rates Should Be Lower Did Not Rebut Fee Claimant’s Attorney’s Declaration.
In Alvarado v. Freedman, Case No. G055918 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff sued defendants for loan repayment, based on a loan agreement with an LLC obligor, under an alter ego theory. There was a contractual fees clause in play. Plaintiff lost to defendants, with the lower court ordering plaintiff to pay defendants $203,940 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. Plaintiff’s appeal did not alter things, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary.
The alter ego theory did trigger section 1717 exposure under the rationale of Reynolds Metals [our Leading Case No. 5], with appellant not explaining why its reasoning was inapt.
No apportionment was done or needed, because plaintiff was seeking alter ego “liability” on both the contract and tort claims, such that the work on both was intertwined.
The hourly rates sought by the winning attorneys in Orange County — $650-$750 for a 25-year experienced litigator and $350 for 8- and 10-year associates – were found reasonable, with appellant only asserting $350 was the reasonable rate. However, just an assertion did not adequately controvert the proof submitted by defendants’ attorney in his moving papers.