Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Sections 1717/998: Substantial Fee Awards To One Defendant And To Plaintiff As Against Other Defendants Sustained By Second District, Division One

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Mutuality Principles and Invalidity of 998 Offer Buttressed Correctness of Trial Court’s Fee Awards.      Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v University of Southern California, Case Nos. B202789/B205034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished) was a hard fought case where plaintiff sued USC for breach of contract. Although lost profits evidence was found to have […]

Reasonableness Of Fees: $128,655 Fee Award Found To Be No Abuse of Discretion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review

Second District, Division 2 Sustains Substantial Award.      In Chapman v. Sullivan Motor Cars, LLC, Case Nos. B222542/B224885 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff had a demurrer sustained without leave to his first amended complaint, with the lower court also adopting a referee’s decision to award attorney’s fees against plaintiff to the

Reasonableness Of Fees: Sixth District Affirms $374,913 Fee Award In Landlord-Tenant Dispute Netting $23,000 In Damages

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Lower Court’s Double Multiplier For Defense Litigation Tactics Sustained on Appeal.      Martin v. Taylor, Case No. H034649 (6th Dist. Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) goes to show you that there is no proportionality principle for awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. In fact, courts will often apply a multiplier if an opponent’s

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statutes/Lodestar/Multiplier/Costs/Standard Of Review: Lower Court Did Abuse Discretion In Awarding Certain Expenses As Fees, In Failing To Allocate, And In Applying A Multiplier

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District.      In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in

Reasonableness Of Fees: Appellate Court Affirms $611,544.75 Fee Award Where Compensatory Damages Were Only $271,682

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

No Proportionality Required Under Section 1717; Defense Expenditure Of More Proved Reasonableness.      In Big Ring Holdings, LLC v. Van Ness Mgt., LLC, Case No. A126692 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 26, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff tenant was awarded $271,682 in damages for a leaking ceiling in a dispute over a yet-to-be-opened laundromat where there was

Retainer Agreements/Section 1717/Reasonableness of Fees: Client Winner Against Attorney After Voiding Retainer Agreement Was Entitled to 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Sixth District Rejected 1717 Mutuality Challenge, But Did Remand For Determination of Reasonable Fee After Proof Failure.      Here is a very interesting one at the top of a new year in the retainer agreement/Civil Code section 1717/reasonableness of fees areas.      Palmer v. Taylor, Case No. H033644 (6th Dist. Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) was

Reasonableness Of Fees: $254,615.50 Fee Award For Plaintiff Affirmed After Her Acceptance Of $95,000 CCP § 998 Offer

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Standard of Review

$509,231 Scaled Back By Trial Court, But Sustained On Appeal.      Here is an interesting substantial fee award. Half of what plaintiff requested, but way above the $95,000 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer eventually accepted in the case on the eve of trial. Goes to show that fees do not have to be

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Decision Fees Decisions–Part 2 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions.      10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post.      Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil

Employment: $7,475 In Fees Awarded To Plaintiff Employee For Recovering $3,289.90 In Wage/Hour Dispute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Plaintiff’s Request for Over $58,500 In Fees Is Firmly Rejected.      Labor Code section 218.5 holds that a prevailing party in an action for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health/welfare/pension fund contributions must be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. It was that pesky word “reasonable” that resulted in a much diminished fee award than

Consumer Statutes: Plaintiff Was Lucky To Get $20,400 In Lemon Law Fees After Rejecting Defense Settlement Offers

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division One Reinforces that Consumer Statutes Are Not a Blank Attorney’s Fees Check.      This next one is a lemon law case, arising under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act with a mandatory fee-shifting provision. However, that fee-shifting statute only allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party (Civ. Code, § 1794(d);

Scroll to Top