Plaintiffs’ Did Not Represent Himself, But Clients; However, No Allocation Required Based On Intertwined Exception.
Defendants were not happy when a trial judge not only enforced a settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 but also awarded attorney’s fees of $40,349.50 based on a settlement fees clause. Their appeal of both rulings was unsuccessful in Federici v. Goff, Case Nos. A141088/141415 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 30, 2015) (unpublished).
Although arguing that some of the work benefitted plaintiffs’ attorney personally so as to fall within the Trope prohibition, the appellate court found the attorney claimed time for representing the prevailing plaintiffs such that the prohibition was not in play, and no allocation was necessary even if the work did benefit counsel under the “inextricably intertwined” exception to apportionment principles. The trial judge reduced the requested fees downward by about 15% to take into account duplication, inefficiencies, etc. such that the amount of the award was reasonable.