Lower Court Already Reduced Fee Request; This Initial Reduction Did Not Lead To The Conclusions That A Denial In Entirety Of Fees Or Further Reductions Were Required. Plaintiff prevailed in a contractual breach claim against a municipality in Air Combat USA v. City of Fullerton, Case Nos. G059914 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 […]
Lower Court Reduced Defendants’ Fee Requests By Over $457,720. Challenging the amount of an attorney’s fees award as an abuse of discretion is a daunting task, given it must be shown the award was irrational or that it shocks a jurist’s conscience. Appellant could not satisfy this tough standard in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s,
Lower Court Did Not Have to Credit The Laffey Matrix. Melbostad v. Kasales, Case No. A165361 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 16, 2023) (unpublished) demonstrates how, in California state court cases, a trial court is able to draw upon its own knowledge and experience in determining a reasonable lodestar hourly rate and in determining
$10,200 Potential Difference Necessitated A Remand, Not On Appellate Modification Based On Uncertainty In The Lower Court’s Ruling. In Fuentes v. Betuel, Case No. B302827 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 19, 2023) (unpublished), prevailing defendants moved to recover attorney’s fees of $128,860, with the lower court making some reductions—including adjustments to prevent a “double
Because Client Had To Hire Appellate Attorneys Reversing The De Novo Trial Results, Client Was Awarded $334,458.11 In Fees/Costs—Affirmed By The Appellate Court. Soni v. Cartograph, Inc., Case No. B316270 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 23, 2023) (unpublished) is quite a megillah of an arbitration/litigation odyssey about a client-attorney dispute over fees. Looks like
Fee Request Reduced On Hourly Rate Ask And Work On An Unfiled Summary Judgment Motion, With Plaintiff’s Multiplier Request Being Denied. Plaintiff accepted a defense CCP § 998 offer waiving a car purchase deficiency and paying her $2,001, with the lower court allowed to determine an award of attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff
Defendants Requested $191,007.50 In Fees, But Were Only Awarded $74,424.71 Based On Their Failure To Provide The Trial Judge With Adequate Supplemental Information. Mooney v. Argus Realty Investors, Case No. G060440 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 2, 2023) (unpublished) is a stark reminder that a fee claimant needs to pay special attention to a
Two Law Firms’ Requests Were Largely Sustained By Reviewing Court. City of Santa Ana v. Yuh, Case No. G060889 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2023) (unpublished) was a situation where a tenant lost an abatement action against the City of Santa Ana for operating two illegal marijuana dispensaries. Two firms representing the City
Plaintiffs Pled CC&Rs As A Basis For Nuisance Claim, So There Was Fee Entitlement Under Civil Code Section 1717, CCP Section 1021, And Civil Code Section 5975, With The Fee Award Being Reasonable After A Minor Haircut By The Trial Judge. Plaintiff homeowners sued neighboring homeowners in a tree obstruction action based on nuisance
Aggrieved Party, Despite Significant Reduction, Appealed To No Avail. We understand that no one likes to be hit with a significant fee award. However, when you get a significant reduction, think carefully about whether you want to appeal. That was the moral of CDC San Francisco LLC v. Webcor Construction, L.P., Case No. A163751 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan.
