Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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 The breadth of discretion is illustrated in the next unpublished decision […]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      In Nejadpour v. Fink, Case No. B204937 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 10, 2008) (unpublished), plaintiff lost an anti-SLAPP motion and defendant was awarded $9,321 in mandatory fees out of a requested $10,296.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

Anti-SLAPP: Losing Plaintiff Has To Pay Fees When Challenge On The Merits Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiff’s Failure to Challenge Specifics of Fees Award Ends the Matter.      The next case we discuss confronts somewhat conflicting themes in our whole blog. The amount of attorney’s fees award is usually a discretionary call reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. However, if one appeals and only challenges the correctness of the

Court of Appeal Reverses 88% “Haircut” In Fee Award to Landlord in ADA Indemnity Dispute With Tenant

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division One Rules That Lower Court May Have Not Used Proper Lodestar Determination Factors in Drastically Cutting Fee Request, Suggesting It Parts Company From Reasoning in The Second District’s EnPalm Decision.      Notwithstanding the breadth of the abuse of discretion standard, the next case illustrates that appellate court will overturn fee awards

California Public Records Act: Unpublished Decision Reviewed On Our October 1, 2008 Post Is Certified For Publication

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

California Public Records Act: Unpublished Decision Reviewed On Our October 1, 2008 Post Is Certified For Publication Sixth District Certifies Bernardi v. County of Monterey For Publication.      On October 1, 2008, we posted a review of Bernardi v. County of Monterey, Case No. H031648 (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 2008). We indicated that this case

Proofread Your Work: Submission of Subpar Written Papers Or Sloppy Work Product Can Lead To A Reduction In Fees

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Transylvania Feral Court Slashes Attorney’s Fees Award Drastically For Spoor Work Product.      Although we usually confine our posts to California-oriented cases, settlements, or fee issues, the following fee reduction ruling by a Philadelphia-based federal district judge was too good to pass up and also offers some sobering lessons to practitioners seeking fee awards when

Sixth District Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award of $244,287.50 Against Monterey County Under the California Public Records Act

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

Unpublished Decision Nicely Surveys Such Topics As Standard of Review, Lodestar, and Multiplier Principles.             In our June 30, 2008 post, we discussed a Shasta County Superior Court’s award of attorney’s fees against the City of Redding under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  Government Code section 6259(d) provides for a mandatory

Inadequate Fee Substantiation: Winner In Attorney Fee Award Fails to Rebut Substantial Opposition Showing Glitches in the Substantiation Process

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

First District, Division Two Reverses Fee Award For Further Remand Proceedings to Scrutinize Substantial Fee Award.             In our “Cases:  Fee Substantiation” category, we have reviewed past decisions showing that California has a fairly “loosey goosey” standard for substantiating the amounts claimed in attorney’s fee petition requests.  However, the next case illustrates

Attorneys Successfully Sue Former Client For Collection Of Full Receivable Plus Attorney’s Fees In Collecting The Receivable

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Recent Case Illustrates the Right Way to Handle A Dispute in Segments and Highlights Good Provisions to Have in Retainer Agreement             In Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley LLP v. Miller, Case No. A118762 (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 31, 2008) (unpublished), Former Client hired Attorneys to resolve a dispute with Client’s neighbors

Scroll to Top