Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Landlord/Tenant, Retainer Agreements: $910,752.50 Fee Award Under San Francisco Rent Ordinance Fee-Shifting Clause Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Trial Judge Did Reduce Requested Lodestar By More Than $70,000—About 60% Of The Request, Although Refusing To Award A Positive 1.5 Multiplier.             Landlords in Duncan v. Kihagi, Case No. A154678 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished), were not pleased when a trial judge awarded $910,752.50 in fees in favor of the winning […]

Allocation: Where Prevailing Litigant Failed To Apportion Compensable And Non-Compensable Fees Where Governing Documents Required A Causal Connection To The Contracts, The Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Fees Altogether

Cases: Allocation

Practice Tip—Think About Apportioning To Avoid The Result Here!             Stifano v. Slaga, Case No. D077865 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 17, 2021) (unpublished) is an example of a case which we do not see often:  a trial judge denying attorney’s fees altogether when a party did not apportion them between compensable and non-compensable claims.

Allocation, Indemnity, Section 1717, Seriously: 4/1 DCA Affirms $6,000 Damages Award And $143,183.55 Out Of Requested $572,730.11 § 1717 Fees To Prevailing Breach Of Contract Plaintiff Who Proved $1,463,745 In Damages At Trial

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717, Seriously

Plaintiff’s Failure To Conduct Due Diligence Prior To Entering Into Commercial Lease And Failure To Mitigate Damages Once Problems Arose Left Him Upside-Down By More Than A Million Dollars When All Was Said And Done             Sherwood v. Vogele, Case No. D076776 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 7, 2021) (unpublished) highlights the importance of

Allocation, Multipliers, Section 1717, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Reversal And Remand Were In Order Where Trial Court Believed It Did Not Have Authority To Apply A Negative Multiplier In An Award Of Attorney Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Invoices Submitted In Support Of Plaintiff’s § 1717 Fees Motion Were Extensively Redacted And Contained Vague Block-Billing, Which Offered The Trial Court No Way To Meaningfully Apportion Time Between Causes Of Action.             After defeating defendant’s cross-claim breach of contract cause of action, plaintiff moved for Civ. Code § 1717 attorney fees of $939,600.50, which

Allocation, Deadlines: $172,000 In Trial/Appellate Fees To One Prevailing Defendant And $36,890 In Appellate Fees To Other Prevailing Defendants Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deadlines

Parties Orally Stipulated To A Postponement Of Appellate Fee Deadlines And Work Was Inextricably Intertwined.             In Ebrahimpour v. Pasco, Case No. B303983 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 7, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a corporate opportunity dispute where there was a memorandum of agreement with a contractual fees clause against multiple defendants.  On remand after

Allocation, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Employee’s Limited Success On Some Compensable Wage/Hour Claims Led To Affirmance Of $17,234 Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Employee Had Requested Fees Of $168,749.47 After Garnering Compensatory Award Of $6,958.36.             This case is another example of how non-compensable claim allocation and limited success can lead to a substantial reduction of a fee request even where there is some fee entitlement basis.             In Caballero v. Bill Muncey Industries, Inc., Case No. D076628

Allocation, Employment, Mulitpliers, Private Attorney General: 1/1 DCA Reverses $2,905,200 In PAGA Penalties Against Defendant, But Affirms $7,793,030 In Attorney Fees Inclusive Of A 2.0 Multiplier

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case.             In Sargeant v. Board of Trustees of The California State University,

Allocation, Civil Rights, Costs, Employment: Former Employer Properly Was Denied Attorney’s Fees Where FEHA Case Had Some Substance

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

However, 2/3 DCA Follows Roman Opinion On When To Award Costs On Non-FEHA Claims.             In Chevreaux v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Case Nos. B291268/B292937 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished), a jury returned a defense verdict in favor of a former employer on a non-FEHA, Tameny retaliation claim after she dismissed

Allocation, Construction, Section 1717: Contractor Defeating Worker’s Compensation Insurance Claims Not Entitled To Contractual Fees, Which Needed To Be Apportioned On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

No Contractual Fee Provisions Covered The Worker’s Compensation Issues.             Although apportionment is sometimes a discretionary exercise, it can be mandatory where there are non-fee entitlement issues which are likely disparate in nature.              Fernandez v. Escutia, Case Nos. H046529/H047015 (6th Dist. Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where a contractor won a construction

Allocation, Private Attorney General: Doe v. Westmont College Is Now A Published Decision

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Prevailing Section 1021.5 Parties Successfully Defending The Case On Appeal Are Allowed To Move For Attorney Fees Post-Appeal Even If The Trial Court Denied Their Pre-Appeal Fees Motion.             We discussed Doe v. Westmont College, Case No. B303208 (2d Dist, Div. 6) in our January 26, 2021 post.  The case was unpublished at the time,

Scroll to Top