Case Was Simple; Fees Were Excessive. Reasonableness of a fees request, we have found, is often an “I know it when I see it” judgment call by a jurist. This next case demonstrates that even appellate panels will scale back fee requests that are too high when compared to the nature of the […]
Reversal and Remand Was the Result in this One. Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary in Fuller v. Monogram Real Estate, Case No. G044808 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 19, 2011) (unpublished), on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, got to explore three issues of interest in the attorney’s fees area
That Was On Top Of Prior Trial Level Fees of $1.25 Million, All in a Boundary Dispute Between Neighbors. Akin to HOA disputes, neighbor boundary disputes generate a lot of emotions as well as a lot of fees in any ensuing litigation. The next case demonstrates that the tab can even be as
Proper Substantiation and Reduced Hourly Fee Clinched the Result. A trial court awarded $52,848 fee award to a defendant who non-suited a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action at trial. Plaintiff challenged the fee award as excessive. Not so, said Presiding Justice Mallano–in a 3-0 opinion–in Jackson v. Kim, Case Nos. B219116/B221686
Excessiveness Challenge Rejected By Appellate Court. A party who was successfully dismissed as a proposed complainant in intervention, after two demurrers, was hit with a $204,637 fee award under Civil Code section 1717 based on a fees clause. The party was obviously upset, appealing the award as excessive. Not so, said the
60% Reduction by Trial Court Dispatched Inefficiency/Padding/Overcharge Challenges. In Fuentes v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. B224034 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 16, 2011) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion unpublished), plaintiff won a $160,000 FEHA damages award, with the lower court subsequently awarding attorney’s fees of $677,025 under the fee-shifting statute. In doing
Here is one demonstrating that appellate courts do not blindly rubber stamp trial court fee awards, simply because a side did prevail. Especially so, when there are multiple lawsuits being litigated and the winning attorney did not clearly apportion out work spent on a parallel, but legally unrelated, action involving the same clients.
Trial Court Discretion Is Broad on this Issue. Viney v. Grupp, Case Nos. A120208/120993 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 19, 2011) (unpublished) is a convoluted real property easement interference case–involving landlocked property–where one $240,000 fee award went POOF! based on a partial reversal of a damages issue (and appellate instructions that there might
Appellate Court Found Lower Court Correct to View L.A. Attorneys As Within San Bernardino Venue and Necessary Given Earlier Misfortunes with Local Attorneys. Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for
She Lost Elder Abuse Claim by Plaintiff and Did Not Prevail on Her Frivolous FEHA Sexual Harassment Cross-claim. Bad facts can result in large jury verdicts; they also tend to guide the dispositon of the trial judge when it comes to awarding attorney’s fees against the non-prevailing litigant. That is what happened in
