Cases: Reasonableness of Fees – Page 23

Interpretation/Indemnification/Reasonableness Of Fees: CAR Listing Agreement Indemnification Clause Broad Enough To Permit Fee Recovery To Brokers Defensing Seller X-Complaint Based On Inaccurate/Undisclosed Information

August 29, 2014

$348,372 Is Broker Fee Recovery; However, CAR Clause May Need To Be Amended To Allow Routine Costs Recovery. Brokerage company successfully defended against a cross-complaint brought by sellers, sellers who were also successfully sued by buyers of an expensive Pacific Palisades residence in the same case. Broker defended against the cross-complaint by arguing […]

Indemnity/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: Reciprocity Principles And Payment Of Fees Under Corporate Indemnity Did Not Impact Civil Code Section 1717 Fee Recovery By Prevailing Defendants Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

August 7, 2014

$380,000 In Aggregate Fees To Three Defendants Was The Final Tally. In Baharian-Mehr v. SGRL Investments, Inc., Case No. G048796 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 7, 2014) (unpublished), defendants in a general partnership dispute–where the original partnership agreement had a contractual fees clause favorable to prevailing parties—won a defense judgment in a multi-count

Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court’s Award Of Only About 10% Of Requested Fees Way Too Low And An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

August 5, 2014

Constitutional Rights Were Vindicated in Prior Published Decision, So Awarding 10% Was Not Right, Appellate Court Says. Usually, when it comes to the amount of fees awarded, an abuse of discretion standard is hard to hurdle. However, the facts, the facts, as Sergeant Friday, would say (“just the facts, ma’am”), can make all

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: $1.6 Million Fee Award Against Nonsignatory Losing Plaintiffs Based On Lease Fee Clause Affirmed On Appeal

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

August 2, 2014

Allocation, Nonsignatory, and Unsuccessful Work Arguments Rejected. In Cal-Murphy, LLC v. Hines Interests Limited Partnership, Case Nos. A137609/A139772 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), non-prevailing parties appealed some adverse fee rulings, which aggregated about $1.6 million. With a very slight modification, the orders were sustained on appeal. Non-prevailing plaintiffs were

Allocation/Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: $73,160 Fee And $3,029.40 Costs Award Against Losing Civil Rights Plaintiff In Favor Of L.A. County Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

July 30, 2014

30% Reduction of Fee and Costs Request Deemed Reasonable. In Villafana v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B246866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2014) (unpublished), civil rights plaintiff bringing FEHA/federal civil rights/California Family Rights Act/public policy violation claims lost a summary judgment to L.A. County based on the statute of limitations

Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: $579,400 Fee Award To Plaintiff Affirmed In FLSA Anti-Retaliation Suit

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

July 13, 2014

Jury Verdict Was $50,000; District Court Awarded $579,400 in Fees Out of Requested $748,522.50. When you are challenging an attorney’s fees award as too high in a civil case, you are running up a steep hill in order to surmount the deferential abuse of discretion review standard. Avila v. LAPD, Case No. 12-55931

Reasonableness Of Fees: Failure To Particularize Objections To Entries Did Not Carry The Deal On Challenged Fee Award

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

July 2, 2014

Block Billing Not Per Se Objectionable. In Kalicki v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. D063508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 30, 2014) (unpublished), Bank appealed a residential borrowers’ fee award of $255,135 as being unreasonable, even though the trial judge did reduce the request a little. The fee amount challenge did not result in

Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing “Lemon Law” Plaintiff Awarded Only $61,236.45 In Requested Fees Of $291,521.25 Did Not Gain More Fees On Appeal

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

June 29, 2014

Lower Court Had Discretion, And Got It Right According To Reviewing Tribunal—Especially Given $12,000 Settlement Amount. You gotta be reasonable as a fee claimant. This one shows that in graphic, telling detail. In Camargo v. Triumph Motorcycles (America) Ltd., Case No. H039172 (6th Dist. June 27, 2014) (unpublished), a “lemon law” plaintiff under a mandatory

Appeal Sanctions/Reasonableness Of Fees On Appeal: Over $91,000 In Fees On Appeal Sustained As Being Reasonable

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

June 24, 2014

However, Appeal Sanctions Not Imposed Against Appellants’ Attorney. We can discern that the Second District, Division 2 is tired of the appeals in ASAP Copy and Print v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., Case No. B249588 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 23, 2014) (unpublished), all of which arose from a copier lease dispute. This

Allocation/Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Two Tenants Recovering Fees Of $184,330.40 In Tenant Ordinance Dispute Keep Them On Appeal Against Landlord Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

June 9, 2014

Fee Award Did Not Have To Be Proportional To $45,441 Jury Verdict Recovery. In Ochoa v. San Juan, Case Nos. A130993/A131051 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 9, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court considered the review of a $184,330.40 to two tenants under a tenant ordinance/ local proposition with prevailing party provisions even though