Lengthy Litigation Can Lead To Large Fee Awards, Which Require An Adequate Record To Challenge. The moral from Westpark Village, et al. v. Khanna, Case No. A164667 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 28, 2022) (unpublished), which involved a contractual fee award of $365,495.02 against defendants after years of litigation, is simple—make sure you have […]
Appellate Court Did Not Buy That Trial Court Could Just Adopt Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Reduction Without Addressing Other Objections. We posted today about a published decision between the parties. Separately, Sarkany v. West, Case No. A161728 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 30, 2022) (unpublished) was landlords’ appeal from an adverse $684,000 attorney’s fees award in
Plaintiff’s FEHA Request Was Reduced Drastically, But The Award Likely Will Go Up Some When Out-Of-Town Rates Are Considered—Although The $700,000 Award Was Substantial. When you are doing appellate work on abuse of discretion issues, the primary issue may be whether the lower court used the correct legal principles as far as reaching its
Judge Finds That Fee Award Of $342,782.50 Is Reasonable In Waiting-Time Penalties Case. On June 17, 2022, the Hon. R. Gary Klausner issued a fee award to the prevailing plaintiff in a waiting-time penalties case. Caley Rae Pavillard v. Ignite International, Ltd. et al., USDC Central District No. 2:21-cv-01306-RGK-Ex.
Case Did Not Involve Fees, But His Lesson Should Be Paid Attention To. Although the opinion in Field v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. B309111 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 9, 2022) (published) is not an attorney’s fees decision per se, an observation early on in the opinion, authored by Justice Wiley, should
Prevailing Parties Requested $393,945.30 In Fees, But Only Awarded $38,920.14—A Win, But Adverse Party Still Unsuccessfully Appealed. The next case, Duncombe v. Barfresh Food Group, Inc., Case No. B308385 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 31, 2022) (unpublished), demonstrates an important lesson: where you obtain a significantly diminished fee award at the trial court level,
A One-Sided Fees Provision Entitled Plaintiff To Reciprocal Prevailing Party Fees Under Section 1717, And A Trial Court’s Determination As To Reasonableness Of Fees Will Not Be Disturbed Absent A Showing That The Trial Court Is Clearly Wrong. In Hernandez v. Thottam, Case No. B306547 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff
Block Billing Criticisms Are Fair, Depending On The Circumstances. Simons v. Superior Court, Case No. B309885 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2022) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court affirmed a Civil Code section 1717 fee award, even with high hourly rates and block billing, when the fee factual finder awarded $170,000
The Panel Found No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Finding That The Hourly Rate And Number Of Hours Requested Were Excessive For A Case That Was Not Complex And Involved Little, If Any, Law And Motion Work. In Mallonee v. Toyota Motor Sales, Case No. E075088 (4th Dist., Div. 2 March 10, 2022)
Fee Amount Is Usually A Discretionary Call. Bouquet Plaza SDS, LLC v. Kimmel, Case No. B306042 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 1, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how attorney’s fee motions should be attuned to lodestar factors, sometimes even offering voluntary reductions to maximize a favorable decision. Otherwise, requesting inflated or improper fees could result in
