Hourly Rate Was Found To Be Reasonable. In I.S. Investments, LLC v. Zamucen, Case No. G064105 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 11, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case to prevailing defendants where there was a contractual fees clause in favor of the defense. Defendants moved for fees of $187,608 based on an hourly rate […]
Substantial Reduction Needed To Be Restudied. On June 29, 2025, we posted on Tidrick v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 22, 2025) (now published), but unpublished at the time. It basically reversed a fee award based on not using venue-based hourly rates and after making what the appellate
Both Sides Appealed The Fee Award, But It Was Affirmed In Entirety. After an adjacent property owner and HOA settled an easement dispute in which $350,000 was paid to plaintiff, an attorney’s fees motion based on the settlement agreement contractual fees clause was partially granted in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff moved for $164,258.50 in fees,
Compensatory Award Was $709,555, With Counsel’s Skill And Multiplier Request Supporting The Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal. The trial judge in Ramirez v. Bala, Case No. H049689 (6th Dist. June 30, 2025) (unpublished) awarded a FEHA plaintiff $1,385,546 in attorney’s fees and costs (about the full request, inclusive of a 1.5 multiplier) after plaintiff
Venue Rates Had To Be Used And The Substantial “Haircut” Needed More Explanation. What happened in Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished) is that lemon law plaintiffs requesting $82,719.33 in fees and costs ($74,275 in fees and $8,444.33 in costs) were only awarded a
In A 2-1 Opinion, Majority Holds The Federal Standards Are Inconsistent With The State Standard Giving The Trial Judge The Power To Adjudge Based On His/Her Experience. We were wondering when an appellate court would take on a split in intermediate appellate thinking on whether across-the-board reductions for unreasonable padding, duplicative work, and unnecessary
Trial Court Needed To Provide More Reasoning For Its Reduction In The Request. Under Corporations Code section 17704.10(g), if a trial court “finds the failure of the limited liability company to comply with the requirements of this section is without justification, the court may award an amount sufficient to reimburse the person bringing the action for
“Haircut” Was Too Much, Requiring A Remand Revisit. In the fee award area, the amount awarded is governed by an abuse of discretion standard. However, large “haircuts” sometimes strike an appellate panel as too arbitrary, requiring a revisit. That was the case in Guevara v. Interstate Meat Co., Inc., Case No. B332546 (2d Dist.,
Trial Court Properly Reduced $124,160 Fee Request To $64,750 To Prevailing Party Based On Partial Success, Under A Percentage Of Recovery And A Lodestar Analysis. Pulse Technology Consulting Group, Inc. v. Skowron & Bunning, LLP, Case No. C098036 (3d Dist. Feb. 11, 2025 partially published; fee discussion published) involved dueling actions about an information
2/8 DCA Considers Deferential Standards For Review Of Fee Awards, With The Record Establishing Plaintiff Prevailed And The Fee Amount Was Not Erroneous. 2025 greets us with a published fee decision written by Justice Wiley of the 2/8 DCA, in his recognizable writing style, with the opinion being penned in Pollock v. Kelso, Case
