No Statement of Decision on “Math” For An Award Is Required In California State Court, Different Than Federal Court Decisions on Same Subject. Vocational printing, math class. 1916. Lewis Hines, photographer. Library of Congress. Switzer v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, Case No. B246005 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 24, 2014) (unpublished) is […]
However, Lodestar Had to Be Re-fixed on a Couple of Issues. Plaintiff SONG, a non-profit, prevailed in an earlier appeal of a challenge to the environmental review of a project to amend Lancaster’s general plan to change the zoning designation so that a developer could construct a shopping center on a vacant lot
Where Reasonableness of Fees Involved, RT Is a Likely Necessity; Cost Memo Was Timely Filed. Pladott v. Blankstein, Case No. B250097 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 4, 2014) (unpublished) involved a plaintiff “hit” with attorney’s fees and costs by defense, with plaintiff arguing that the existence of a cross-complaint meant the postjudgment orders
$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
$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 In Baharian-Mehr v. SGRL Investments, Inc., Case No. G048796 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 7, 2014) (unpublished), defendants in a general partnership dispute–where the original partnership agreement had a contractual fees clause favorable to prevailing parties—won a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
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, 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 A137609/A139772 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), non-prevailing parties appealed some adverse fee rulings, which aggregated about $1.6 million.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
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
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
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
