10% Reduction for Improper Redaction Was Not Enough to Compensate for Deficient Fee Substantiation. This is an interesting decision on the substantiation of fees area, which again has us reminding practitioners to be careful to not over “redact” fee billings placed before the trial court. (For some helpful past insight, see our prior […]
Informative Discussion of SLAPP Fee Appealability Cases and Block Billing Implications. Though unpublished, the appellate decision in LegacyQuest v. Rosen, Case No. A129177 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2012) (unpublished) has a great discussion of SLAPP fee order appealability issues as well as trial court discretion relating to block billing time submissions
. . . On Adequate Fee Substantiation, Cost Recovery Under Civil Code Section 3334(a), And Deadlines For Submitting Amended Fee Request Information This next case is a wild thing, a second appeal involving litigants entangled in a subsurface trespass case where plaintiff was seeking to recover for defendant’s environmental contamination of its groundwater.
Reversal and Remand Was the Result in this One. Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary in Fuller v. Monogram Real Estate, Case No. G044808 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 19, 2011) (unpublished), on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, got to explore three issues of interest in the attorney’s fees area
Proper Substantiation and Reduced Hourly Fee Clinched the Result. A trial court awarded $52,848 fee award to a defendant who non-suited a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action at trial. Plaintiff challenged the fee award as excessive. Not so, said Presiding Justice Mallano–in a 3-0 opinion–in Jackson v. Kim, Case Nos. B219116/B221686
$10,000 Fee Award to Wife Reversed by Fifth District. This next case demonstrates that unsworn statements about the nature of fee work will not support a fee award in the family law arena, much less other arenas. The Fifth District, in Marriage of Monroe, Case No. F061014 (5th Dist. Nov. 14, 2011)
Appellate Court Found Lower Court Correct to View L.A. Attorneys As Within San Bernardino Venue and Necessary Given Earlier Misfortunes with Local Attorneys. Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for
SLAPP Appeal Did Not Stay Fee Motion and Block Billing Challenge Rejected. In Mangine v. Steier, Case Nos. B219022/B222822 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPPed and lost a summary adjudication of a landlord-tenant dispute in which the lower court granted attorney’s fees of $71,500 to present landlord under
Gives Tips On What to Look For. Although it dates back to January 29, 2003, the State Bar of California has an Arbitration Advisory aptly entitled "Detecting Attorney Bill Padding." To identify bill padding, the Advisory suggested arbitrators focus on three things when determining a reasonable fee: 1. Evaluate the team/staffing
Fee Award for SLAPP Motion Defendant Sustained. In a SLAPP motion context, defendant won a fee award of $13,900 based predominantly on the declaration of their counsel calculating the fee for services but not attaching detailed time records. Did this prevail on appeal? You bet. The appellate court in Souza v. Farrer,
