Proper Method Was To File A Separate Appeal, Although Fee Award Had To Be Reconsidered Due To Reversal Of Economic Damages Component Of Jury Verdict.
Kealy v. Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC, Case No. B286410 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 15, 2019) (unpublished) counsels to plaintiffs believing that a fee award is too low, where the defense has appealed from the underlying judgment, to preserve a challenge to the fee award by separately appealing it, not attempting to challenge it through simply filing a cross-appeal.
In this one, plaintiff challenged an attorney’s fees award under the Consumer Credit Agencies Reporting Act in the amount of $325,709 because it was much lower than plaintiff’s requested $772,043.95, after winning a jury verdict with economic damages of $345,000, with non-economic damages of $25,000, and with punitive damages of $9,212.92. The defense appealed the judgment and fee award, with plaintiff cross-appealing the fee award on the ground it was not enough.
The appellate court reversed the economic damages award as a matter of law so that the fee award did have to be revisited, but affirmed the remainder of the judgment. However, plaintiff’s challenge that the award was not enough could not be entertained because the proper vehicle to challenge was through a separate appeal, not a cross-appeal. (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 3:175, p. 3-79.)