Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Block Billing: Commentators Disapprove the Practice and Courts Have Wide Discretion in Disregarding Block Billed Entries Altogether or Reducing by a Reasonable Percentage

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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 […]

Breaking News: Supreme Court Denies Review of Harman v. City and County of San Francisco

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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.      

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF POMONA AWARDED OVER $4 MILLION IN FEES IN SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE OF WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE SUIT AND IN SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF FRAUD/CONTRACT CROSS-CLAIMS

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

QUANTUM MERUIT AWARD TO UNPAID ATTORNEY GOVERNED UNDER SIMILAR TEST USED IN AWARDING REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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             Farina v. Wedbush, Case No. D050926 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 16, 2008) (unpublished) is must reading for those that think that the “no good deed goes unpunished” adage always

LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS MAY MEAN FEE AWARD IS MANDATORY—BUT AMOUNT OF FEES ARE DISCRETIONARY AND MAY RESULT IN A DISAPPOINTINGLY SMALL AWARD

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Finds that Plaintiff Individually Settling for $10,500—Even Though His Claim Was Only For $44.63—Entitled to Garner a $500 Fee Award.         There are many sections of the California Labor Code that have mandatory fee award authority. As examples, Labor Code section 1194(a) provides that employees paid less than their legal overtime

THE BUSSEY DEBATE IS NO LONGER DEBATABLE—EXPERT WITNESS FEES AND OVERHEAD COSTS CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS “ATTORNEY’S FEES”

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Bussey Court Abrogates Its Own Decision in Line With Criticisms Of Sister Appellate Courts             As alluded to in our June 4 post discussing the recent Richlin Security decision, there was a prior rift in opinion among the California appellate courts over whether expenses such as expert witness fees, investigator fees, long distance

In PRO PER APPELLANT LOSES CHALLENGES TO APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEE AWARD FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL OF AN ANTI-SLAPP ORDER

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 3 Sanctions Losing In Pro Per Plaintiff By Affirming $40,000 Attorney’s Fees Award.             Previously, an in pro per litigant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a fraudulent transfer complaint by an opponent.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §425.16 [anti-SLAPP statute].)  In pro per lost the motion, and the trial

UNSUPPORTED CHALLENGE OF “EXCESSIVENESS” OR “DUPLICATIVE WORK” BY APPELLANT CHALLENGING FEE AWARDS REJECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Experts, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Affirms Award of Anti-SLAPP Fees to Defendant Where Fee Attacks Were Not Supported by Competent Evidence.                          When opposing a fee motion, a litigant should support challenges with competent evidence.  Such evidence can take the form of an expert witness or a particularized challenge to

SANTA ANA COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS AWARD OF $141,000 TO DEFENDANT TRYING TO WARD OFF A $47,000 CLAIM

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Defendant Did Prevail and Award of Fees Eclipsing Damage Exposure By Three Was Not Out of Line.             Imagine this one. Plaintiff sues defendant for $47,000 when defendant failed to purchase software and maintenance from plaintiff.  Defendant brought a cross-claim for fraud, which it conceded was essentially

Scroll to Top