Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Civil Code Section 1717 and Fee Clauses Interpretation: Appellate Court Reverses $1,370,604 Fee Award Because Some Recovery Was On Uncovered Fraud Counts And Winner’s Limited Success Required Some Further Apportionment

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

First District, Division 4 Believed Award Needed to Apportion Out Some Fraud Work and Take Into Account Plaintiff’s Limited Success on the Promissory Note Claims.      Who says that appellate courts blindly rubberstamp fee awards by trial courts? The next case certainly demonstrates that this is not the case, with the reviewing courts making sure […]

Contempt Attorney’s Fees Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1218(a) Are Vacated Based On Failure To Apportion And On Due Process Grounds

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

  Fourth District, Division 3 Also Finds That Fee Clarifying Substantiation in Reply Brief Was Too Late Unless Opponent Given Opportunity for Further Response.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a) provides for attorney’s fees to “the party initiating the contempt” for fees which that party incurred “in connection with the contempt proceeding.” It is

Permissive Fees In A Family Civil Harassment Lawsuit Properly Denied Where Inadequate Record Presented Below And Trial Court Found Fees To Be Unreasonable In Amount

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Second District, Division 3 Sustains Denial of Fees under Family Code section 6344(a).      The next case reinforces the notion that if you are going to appeal, make sure you develop an adequate record on review—especially so when a fee entitlement statute is permissive and any fee ruling is scrutinized under the abuse of

Winning County Teacher’s Challenge To $180,000 Fee Award Under Education Code Section 44944(e)(2) Affirmed

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

Second District, Division Two Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Not Awarding $300,670 in Attorney’s Fees to Winning Teacher.      The next case concerns a statutory fee-shifting statute—Education Code section 44944(e)(2). It also is an interesting illustration of how appellate courts vary in finding whether a lower court should have articulated the basis for its

Class Actions: Third District Publishes Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Decision Discussed in Our January 28, 2009 Post.      In our January 28, 2009 post, we discussed Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Case, where the Third District affirmed a $4 million class action fee award that represented 1.4% of the settlement fund recovery and a 2.52 multiplier enhancement on a $1.4 million lodestar.      Yesterday,

Out-of-State Attorneys: Don’t Despair—Ninth Circuit Holds You Can Get Paid As A Consultant Even Though You Are Not California Licensed Or Not Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Holding Draws A Sharp Dissent; Opinion Also Discusses Lodestar and Sufficiency of Fee Substantiation.      The next case should spur the interest of non-California lawyers wishing to do limited consultation or limited co-counseling with California lawyers in California federal courts. Even if you are not licensed in California or do not obtain pro hac vice

Class Action: Court Of Appeal Sustains 1.4% Fund Recovery And 2.52 Lodestar Multiplier In Consumer Class Action

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Third District Sustains Substantial Fee Award in Unpublished Decision.      Who says that class action attorneys are greedy? No matter what your bent, the next case is a refreshing example of how substantial fees are justified in a class action settlement generating substantial recovery for class members.

Anti-SLAPP: Trial Court Has Discretion To Reduce Lodestar and Award Fees Reasonably Expended By Counsel

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Second District, Division 8 Reduces Requested Fees/Costs From $7,737 to $2,580 to Winning Anti-SLAPP Victor.      Discretion, discretion, discretion. Awfully tough standard to win on appeal in any context, even when you win fees as a victorious plaintiff successfully prosecuting an anti-SLAPP motion. The breadth of discretion is illustrated in the next unpublished decision

HOA Fee Award: No Error Where No Evidence Submitted To Backup Argument That Claimed Fees Were Unreasonable

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

Fourth District, Division Three Finds the Lack of Evidence to be Dispositive.      If you are going to challenge a fee claim as being unreasonable or excessive in nature, you need to be prepared to present evidence to back up these arguments. The failure to do so will likely lead to affirmance of a fee

Anti-SLAPP: Court of Appeal Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award To Defendant SLAPP Winner

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

$9,321 Award Sustained Where No Error Shown By Losing Plaintiff.      In Nejadpour v. Fink, Case No. B204937 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 10, 2008) (unpublished), plaintiff lost an anti-SLAPP motion and defendant was awarded $9,321 in mandatory fees out of a requested $10,296. The trial court actually accepted plaintiff’s argument that some discovery fees

Scroll to Top