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 A137609/A139772 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), non-prevailing parties appealed some adverse fee rulings, which aggregated about $1.6 million.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 In Villafana v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B246866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2014) (unpublished), civil rights plaintiff bringing FEHA/federal civil rights/California Family Rights Act/public policy violation claims lost a summary judgment to L.A. County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 In Kalicki v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. D063508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 30, 2014) (unpublished), Bank appealed a residential borrowers’ fee award of $255,135 as being unreasonable, even though the trial judge did reduce the request a little.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
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 June 27, 2014) (unpublished), a “lemon law” plaintiff under a mandatory
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appeals in ASAP Copy and Print v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., Case No. B249588 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 23, 2014) (unpublished), all of which arose from a copier lease dispute.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
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
Apportionment and Mitigation Arguments Rejected By Reviewing Court. Hill v. Degery, Case No. H038874 (6th Dist. June 9, 2014) (published) is a situation where, after an earlier appeal reversing a fee denial, an LLC member was granted fees based on its statutory immunity defense that it could not be liable unless its conduct
FEHA Plaintiff’s Counsel Offered 5% Duplication Discount and Trial Court Reduced Another 60% From Requested Amounts—Nothing More Needed. Vargas v. Martinez-Senftner Law Firm, P.C., Case No. C069218 (3d Dist. June 5, 2014) (unpublished) was a losing defense appeal of a second lower court award of an additional $224,675.71 in fees to a winning
