Second District, Division 5 Follows the Rule … But Still Provide Specificity! The next case has a little something for everybody, principally the type of fee substantiation that will pass muster in California state fee proceedings. In Cruz v. Martin, Case No. B209880 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 4, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff won
Unpublished Decision Unremarkably Affirms Section 271 Sanctions and Awards Appellate Sanctions, But Remarkably Does Approve of “Estimated” Future Fee Approach in Fee Contests. The next decision we survey is not remarkable for its results: it affirmed a Family Code section 271 sanctions award of $9,500 and then imposed appellate sanctions of $7,500 for a
Second District, Division 8 Remands for Reduction Due to “Doubling Up” And Augmentation For Prior Fees That May Have Avoided Repetitive Work. Two sets of successful defendant attorneys were awarded, respectively, $100,000 and $50,000 for their efforts in obtaining SLAPP wins for their clients. Each set of attorneys had two counsel involved (with Cumis
Second District, Division 8 Reinforces that Contemporaneous Time Record Submission Is Not a Fee Recovery Requirement. This next case illustrates two important principles under Civil Code section 1717: (1) you need some fee entitlement basis—either a statute or contractual fees clause; and (2) California state law is more lenient on fee substantiation, although it
First District, Division 1 Makes the Point for Specific Substantiation in Recent Unpublished Decision. Probate law requires more specific substantiation to justify trust payments of attorney’s fees than is required in civil litigation—although our recent posts have still lobbied that time sheets and detailed breakdowns are advisable no matter what the context. The need
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sufficient Substantiation in Attorney Declaration Attesting to Actual Number of Hours Worked and Attorney’s Billing Rate. Many practitioners might think that itemized billing statements and evidence on reasonableness of rates/hours expended are essentials in a fee petition proceeding. Although highly advisable, the next case reinforces that such detailed substantiation
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Winning Litigant Properly Allocated Fees. In Bohl v. Pryke, Case No. E045405 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 1, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant in a “reporter’s shield law” case refused to reveal sources. However, he also apparently refused to answer legitimate discovery, drawing the lower court’s ire. The trial court
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
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
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
