Six-Plus Hours During Trial Not Deemed Unreasonable For Litigation Attorney’s Efforts. Client retained a trial litigation Attorney less than two months before a trial in which she claimed ownership to an Oakland condominium even though her relatives paid significant mortgage expenses and loan interest costs on the condominium. Attorney hit the […]
Court of Appeal Sustains Reductions by Trial Court and Suggests That Fees Expended by the Opposition Has Probative Value in Fee Proceedings. In Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (Horsford I), 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 402 (2005), the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined a trial court had applied
District Court Will Not Award Requested $2 Million in Fees Sought by Individual Plaintiffs. In early August 2008, the Ninth Circuit decided that anything more than a 10% fee "haircut" to prevailing civil rights plaintiffs is seldom justifiable unless specific reasons are set forth for more drastic reductions. See Moreno v.
Chief Justice Kozinski Overturns Excessive Fee Haircut And Sets A Presumptive 10% Standard For Review of Fee Haircuts. Part of blogging is to recognize and “hat tip” posts by our colleagues. Greg May, of the California Blog of Appeal, posted a very informative post on Moreno v. City of Sacramento, Case
Second District Affirms Large Fee Award Based on Indemnification Clause in the Parties’ Banking Account Agreement. In our July 12, 2008 post, we discussed what type of indemnification clauses can give rise to attorney’s fees exposure, with the upshot being that the answer depends on the specific wording of the clause
Second District, Division Three Rules on Scope and Reasonableness of Certain Fees Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, one segment of California’s Elder Abuse Act, is a mandatory fee-shifting provision. In relevant part, section 15657.5 provides: “(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance
State Courts Have Wide Discretion, While Federal Courts Usually Reduce By a Trial Court-Assigned Percentage. Block billing is the practice of assigning a one-time charge to multiple tasks. An example looks like this: “June 10, 2008: Telephone conferences with client, retained expert, and opposing counsel; legal research; meeting with expert and
Denial of Writ of Certiorari Leaves Court of Appeal Opinion – and Fee Award — Intact. On June 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for writ of certiorari for San Francisco v Harman, Allen. —S.Ct.—, 2008 WL 1955817 (U.S. Cal.), 76 USLW 3611.
Second District Affirms Lower Court Award, Rebuffing Apportionment, Inadequate Fee Substantiation, and Reasonableness Challenges. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pomona (RA) foreclosed on a $9.3 million loan made to plaintiffs for purposes of developing a retail commercial center. Plaintiffs pursued contract and wrongful foreclosure claims against RA, which primarily defended
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Award of Fees to a Very Forbearing Attorney, Some Under a Quantum Meruit Theory of Recovery. Farina v. Wedbush, Case No. D050926 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 16, 2008) (unpublished) is must reading for those that think that the “no good deed goes unpunished” adage always
