$152,529.95 Fee Request Slashed Down To $30,752.86 Through Actual Fee Order. On May 20, 2016 and June 20, 2016, we posted on a case which was later accepted for rehearing by the same appellate panel. The opinion upon rehearing is now out in 569 East County Blvd. LLC v. Backcountry Against The Drop, […]
Reviewed in Our May 6, 2014 Post. In our May 6, 2014 post, we reviewed Syers Properties v. Rankin, Case No. A137610 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 5, 2014 issued unpublished), which held among other things that: (1) detailed categorical breakout of time spent can substantiate a fee petition in California state courts;
Successful Defendants Substantiated Hours and Hourly Rate Very Well In This One. Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, Case No. A137610 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 5, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a $843,245.27 defense fee award under Civil Code section 1717 was challenged on narrow grounds—with plaintiff disputing the reasonableness of
U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix Not Binding On State Courts In Determining Hourly Rates. On April 9, 2014, we posted on DKN Holdings, LLC v. Faerler, a Fourth District, Division Two unpublished decision finding that the U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix (developed for the D.C. area) was not binding on state courts when
Number of Years of Experience But One Factor. The winner of a commercial lease dispute with a fees clause was awarded $54,817.50 in fees, about 30% less than requested. On appeal, the loser argued that the trial court had to rely on the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Laffey Matrix information in fixing fees. The appellate
Although there is a raging debate on which one to use, both the U.S. Attorney’s Office version and the Adjusted version of the Laffey Matrix are out for 2013-2014. (If you go to our category “Laffey Matrix,” you will get posts on the debate.) However, here is what the recent matrices show for
For those of you following our hourly rate analysis in the fee substantiation area, we have posted in the past on the use of the Laffey Matrix and related permutations in our December 31, 2010 post. We now have an update for you from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (federal level).
Given California’s More Liberal Approaches, These Alternatives Might Offer Guidance. California endows trial judges with quite a bit of discretion when fixing the reasonableness of fees in a fee petition proceeding. Hourly rates can be pegged based on attorney declarations, surveys, matrices, and the like. Lodestar adjustments, upward or downward, are based on
Adjusted Laffey Matrix Methodology and U.S. District Judge Walker’s Approach. In our December 28, 2010 post, we discussed the Laffey Matrix, which has gained acceptance by some judges in determining reasonable hourly rates for attorneys when it comes to presentation of proof in fees petitions. We now give you an introduction to alternative methodologies
Hourly Market Rate Analysis Frequently Involves Use Of the Laffey Matrix, Although Some Courts Do Not Like It. When one is petitioning for fees or contesting a petition for fees, it is usually incumbent to utilize the lodestar approach by determining the prevailing hourly market attorney rates in the relevant community (most often,
