Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Substantiation Of Fees: Laffey Matrix Versus Adjusted Laffey Matrix . . . Or Hybrid Of A Matrix–Part 1 of 2

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Hourly Market Rate Analysis Frequently Involves Use Of the Laffey Matrix, Although Some Courts Do Not Like It.      When one is petitioning for fees or contesting a petition for fees, it is usually incumbent to utilize the lodestar approach by determining the prevailing hourly market attorney rates in the relevant community (most often, […]

Substantiation Of Fees Under Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Court Of Appeal Overturns Trial Court’s Reconsideration Of Fees Request Where No Supporting Evidence Presented In Initial Fee Request Papers

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Third District Finds Reconsideration Was Erroneous and Finds No Basis for CCP § 473 Relief.      Here is a case that segues well with what we have advocated in many prior posts: when you prepare fee requests, make sure your papers provide the lower court with a roadmap, and a roadmap supported by competent evidence

Private Attorney General Statute: Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Trial Judge’s Refusal To Allow Supplemental Trial Fees To Plaintiffs That Obtained Appellate Success For CEQA Claims

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Appellate Panel Also Has Good Things to Say for Appellate Attorneys—Their Work is Specialized and May Command Higher Fee Awards Despite Some Duplication With Trial Work.      Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. D056972 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 17, 2010) (certified for publication) is an interesting case mainly for

Lodestar: Second Time Around, Fourth District, Division 2 Sustains Lodestar Analysis Of Trial Court In Awarding $959,925 In Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Trial Judge Also Correctly Awarded Interest on Fee Award and $193,800 In Appellate Attorney’s Fees.      McCasland v. Beckman, Case No. E049166 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 10, 2010) (unpublished) (McCasland II) is the second group of appeals addressing attorney’s fees awarded to winners of a contract dispute, after the appellate court affirmed the merits

Substantiation Of Fee Requests: Seventh Circuit Opinion Contrasts Federal From California State Approach To Using Redacted Fee Substantiation

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Federal Decision Eschews “Line by Line” Scrutiny and Does Not Mind Redacted Billings in Many Instances.      In an earlier post when we first began blogging on California attorney’s fees, we reported on Gregg I & II out of the Fourth District, Division 1 Court of Appeal. (See our June 30, 2008 post.) These decisions

Homeowners Associations: $65,707.80 Fee Award To HOA Affirmed On Appeal.

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Block Billing Per Se Will Not Tank a Fee Request.      Under our category "Homeowner Associations," we have reviewed numerous decisions where homeowners or HOAs feel the sting of "victory or defeat," even if ABC’s famous "World of Sports" mantra was not directly in play. Well, we have another one to share with you—where

SLAPP: Court Of Appeal Affirms $6,840 SLAPP Fee Award To Defense

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 3 Does Find That Fee “Estimates” For Future Work On Reply Papers/Appearance Adequately Underpins Ultimate Award.      Although it has a great discussion of the Flatley exception and the circumstances where the litigation privilege is trumped by more specific statutes, our local Fourth District, Division 3 does have a nice discussion

Sanctions: $247,397.28 Fee and $10,808.76 Cost Awards Affirmed Against Attorney As Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 In Copyright Infringement Case

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Ninth Circuit Finds Sanctions Were Warranted and Were Not Excessive in Nature.      28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows a district judge to sanction an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously” for those excess costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred as a result of attorney’s conduct. Recklessness suffices under

Fee Substantiation: When Trial Court Bases Denial Of Fees On Independent Grounds, Address Both Grounds On Appeal Or Face Affirmance For Failure To Rebut Correctness Of Trial Court Ruling

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Second District, Division 5 Sustains Fee Denial Based on Failure to Address Fee Substantiation Inadequacies.      The next case we examine teaches a staple of appellate law: make sure you address all of the trial court’s reasons for a ruling on appeal. If you don’t, risk having the appellate court affirming based on the failure

Scroll to Top