No Problem That 40% Fee Award Paralleled Jury Decision That Prevailing Party Was 60% Negligent. In Stone v. Mitchell, Case No. A132335 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 16, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed won a negligence claim but lost two other claims, with the jury finding plaintiffs were 60% responsible for injuries on the
Fee Recovery of Less than 10% of Request Affirmed on Appeal. Byrne v. Peninsula Heating & Appliance, Inc., Case No. A134664 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 12, 2013) (unpublished) is one of those classic appeals involving a challenge to the amount of fees, which is governed by an abuse of discretion reviewing standard.
No Need For Independent Fee Expert Scrutiny, Because Trial Judge Can Do It. Here is an interesting reasonableness of fees challenge made on appeal to our local Santa Ana appellate court in Yeskin v. Pacific Mercantile Bank, Case No. G045361 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary
Abuse of Discretion Standard Not Hurdled. In Ruane v. 403 Main LLC, Case No. B227273 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 30, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a lease/option dispute to the defense, which recovered a $90,000 judgment on the cross-complaint. The trial court then awarded Civil Code section 1717 fees under a contractual fees
