Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Costs/Reasonableness Of Fees: Fee Award To Prevailing Party Of $80,000 Sustained Even Though Request Was $560,236.47

Cases: Costs, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Deposition Costs Disallowed Where No Detail Provided.      The next case from our local Santa Ana appellate court teaches two lessons: (1) prevailing parties filing costs memoranda need to utilize the entire Judicial Council forms, including the worksheets which have more detail that just the initial summary page; and (2) Civil Code section 1717 […]

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fee Request: Defense Request For FEHA “Frivolousness” Fee Recovery Denied Because Of Block Billing

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Block Billing Vitiated Certainty of Defense Request for Allocated Fee Recovery.      We have many, many times before warned about the dangers of block billing. Under governing California law, block billing can result in draconian results when a trial court considers a fee request–it can disregard the billing in entirety or reduce the request

Deadlines/Section 1717/Substantiation Of Reasonableness of Fees: Fourth District, Division 3 Talks About Timely Moving For Fee Recovery, Scope of Section 1717 Recovery, And Fee Billing Redactions

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

  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Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary in Fuller v. Monogram Real Estate, Case No. G044808 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 19, 2011) (unpublished), on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, got to explore three issues of interest in the attorney’s fees area

Reasonableness Of Fees: $52,848 Fee Award Sustained

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

  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

Reasonableness Of Fees: Fees Clause Allowed Trial Court Authority To Award $204,637 In Fees Under Section 1717 For Two Successful Demurrers

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: $677,025 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Reasonableness Of Fees: $168,508.75 Fee Award Was Not Reasonable In Amount, Where Time Records Showed No Apportionment Out Of Time Spent On Parallel, But Legally Unrelated, Action By Attorney Representing Winning Defendant

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

       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.

Reasonableness Of Fees: Work Of Second Attorney Affiliating Closer To Trial Properly Discounted From Fee Award

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Scroll to Top