Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Allocation/Intellectual Property/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Prevailing On Trade Misappropriation Claim To The Tune Of $1,513,400 Also Entitled To Statutory Fees Of $3,297,102.50

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Published Part of Opinion on Fee Issues Focuses on Reasonable Hourly Rates in Court Venue.      Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc., Case Nos. A134343/A135831 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion on hourly rates published but rest of fee discussion unpublished) dealt with both the merits of […]

Reasonableness Of Fees: Fees For Collateral Actions And Hourly Rates Sought By Prevailing Party Were Reasonable In Nature

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Discounted Rates of $150-260 in Riverside Were Just Fine.      Defendant promising to sell certain property to a plaintiff governmental entity for $8.42 million, with some environmental contamination holdback provisions, lost a specific performance suit in Riverside County Transportation Commission v. Liston Brick Co. of Corona, Case No. E054980 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr.

Allocation/Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Real Estate Buyer’s Tort Claims Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure Under Narrowly-Worded Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Sellers Were Liable To Third-Party For Losing Their Contractual/Indemnity Claims, Which Were Intertwined And Needed No Apportionment.      Real estate buyer lost tort/statutorily-based nondisclosure claims to the sellers in a dispute where a purchase agreement had a fees clause mandating fees in an action brought “with respect to the subject matter of enforcement

Reasonableness Of Fees: Failure To Provide Specific Challenges In Contentious Litigation Justified Fee Award By Lower Court In Storage Unit Dispute Against In Pro Per Plaintiff

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Fee Entitlement Justified Under Storage Contract “New Customer” Fee Clause.      Unfortunately, this next case—involving an in pro per plaintiff who looks like she was overmatched—still illustrates our Mission Statement that a small dispute, whether won or lost, can still generate fees which eclipse what is involved on the merits—something both litigants and practitioners

Consumer Statutes/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Ford’s Oral Opposition To Lemon Law Fee Request Was Unsuccessful As Was Subsequent Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Ford Motor Hit With $50,574.19 Lemon Law Jury Verdict, And Then Hit Again With $342,540.25 In Fees As Well As Costs/Expenses On Top.      Many California consumer statutes, like the lemon laws, have mandatory fee-shifting statutes. Frequently, a winning plaintiff can obtain fee awards that are many times a multiplier of the underlying merits

Lodestar/Multiplier/Settlement/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Recovering $2.25 Million Dependent Abuse Verdict Also Recoups Additional $333,727.56 In Fees And $31,016.22 In Costs

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Settlement

  Much Less Awarded Than Requested $1.042-1.390 Million in Fees; Plaintiff Stipulated to Costs Reduction, With Modified Judgment Entered Accordingly.      This case is an interesting illustration of how lower courts will reduce an inflated fee request to calculate a lodestar as well as enforce a “high/low” stipulation that was silent with regard to fees/costs.

Reasonableness Of Fees/Substantiation Of Fees: Detailed Time Entries, Even Without Billings, Supported $192,678.98 Fees/Costs Award Even Though Compensatory Damages Were Only $44,960.32

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Trial Court Showed Discretion Exercised by Slicing $34,630.75 From Fee Request.      Just to show you that fee awards do not have to be proportional to damages and that California does not absolutely require fee billings as substantiation, we refer readers to A-Z Bus. Sales, Inc. v. City of Burbank, Case Nos. B244867/B247187 (2d

Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court’s Award Of Civil Code Section 1717 Fees To Winning Defendant Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Unpublished Decision Has Nice Review of Lodestar Setting and Appellate Review Principles.      DEI, LLC v. Capital Partners Services Corp., Case No. D062553 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 13, 2014) (unpublished) is not remarkable for the appellate court’s affirmance of a $134,092.00 attorney’s fees award (out of a requested $153,527.50) to the winning defendant

Construction/Reasonableness Of “Fees On Fees”: On Third Appeal, Trial Court Mainly Gets Award Of Prompt Payment Statutory Fees Right

Cases: Construction, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  However, Appellate Court Found Small “Fees on Fees” Award To Be Abuse of Discretion.      In a third round of appeals, P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Oakland, Case No. D060760 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court considered whether the trial judge properly fixed attorneys’ fees under California’s prompt

Scroll to Top