Trial Judge Discounted $46,958.22, With Challenging Party’s Failure To Request A Statement of Decision Fatal To Its Appeal To Get More Fees.. This case is interesting and highlights a tension in California state law which will have to be confronted at some point in time. Azinian v. Luby’s Ruddruckers Restaurants LLC, Case […]
Party Awarded Fees Prevailed, Plus Block Billing No Obstacle Where Apportionment Not Required. In Kern Water Bank Authority v. Grayson Service, Inc., Case Nos. F069806/F070549 (5th Dist. Feb. 3, 2016) (unpublished), litigant in a contentious lease dispute recovered $396,031 out of a requested $566,930. The Court of Appeal affirmed. It found that the
Dueling Appeals Resulted In No Change To Fee Award. Alvarez v. W&L Harris Ranches, LLC, Case No. C074421 (3d Dist. Dec. 21, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting case which primarily discusses the level of substantiation needed in a fee proceeding. It reinforces that California state court judges have a lot of discretion in
Century Community Lending Co., LLC v. Saleh, Case No. B255576 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 14, 2015) (Unpublished): $61,907.50 Fee Award To Prevailing Guarantor Sustained. In this one, lender made a full nonjudicial foreclosure credit bid, which led to a defense verdict against a sued guarantor of the loan. Based on a fees
Trial and Appellate Court Rebuffed Plaintiff’s Request For $153,525 In Fees. Well, plaintiff won a FEHA claim—but had very limited success—in a tenant dispute with landlord and apartment managers over unlawful housing discrimination/retaliation for reporting the alleged discrimination. A jury awarded plaintiff $5,000, after the trial court directed verdicts on plaintiff’s claims for
No Proportionality Required Under Civil Code Section 1717. In Cannon v. Hohenberg, Case No. H040497 (6th Dist. Oct. 27, 2015) (unpublished), defendant guarantor lost a case to the prevailing plaintiff where a contractual fees clause was involved. The lower court awarded about $55,000 in fees even though plaintiff only recovered $47,000 in compensatory
Appellate Court Found No Basis Under HOA Or Section 1717, But Did Affirm The Small Award Not Challenged By The Other Side—Chastising Defendants For Their Realistic Assessment This Was A Small Claims Matter Undeserving Of Large Fees, But Then Requesting $675,000. We have to say that our California intermediate appellate courts get interesting
Out-of-Town Counsel Use/High Hourly Rates And Positive Multiplier Enhancement Dominate Discussion In Lengthy Unpublished Decision From Riverside DCA. Although this case should be of interest to civil rights practitioners on the merits (discussing various evidentiary and instructional error issues), Ruelas v. Harper, Case No. E051961 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2015) (unpublished)
Case Is A Primer On How To Satisfy Lodestar Factor And Fight An Award Reduced By A District Judge, Whether In CAFRA Or Other Cases. In U.S.A. v. Moser, No. 13-55266 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2015) (published), the Ninth Circuit, in a majority decision by Circuit Judge Hurwitz and a concurrence by Circuit
Challenge To Reasonableness Of Hourly Rate And Work Performed Rebuffed. California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (sometimes dubbed a “lemon law” in car/RV cases) has a fee-shifting provision which requires the trial court to engage in a little bit different analysis, but not really that different under the lodestar method: determine the actual time
