Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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Third District Sustains Substantial Fee Award in Unpublished Decision.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

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

Scroll to Top