Fourth District, Division 2 Rebuffs Request for Over $40,000 in Fees.
Plaintiff landlord sued and ultimately recovered $37,420 in delinquent rent (plus $10,295.96 in interest) from former tenants who had abandoned commercial premises being rented in the past. Landlord won a prior judicial arbitration, being awarded $13,622 in fees and costs. However, when landlord sought to recoup almost $41,000 in fees for prevailing under a rental agreement fees clause after winning the superior court trial, the trial court only awarded $695 in costs and $15,000 in fees.
Appealing landlord did not convince the Fourth District, Division 2 that the trial judge abused its discretion in awarding fees lower than it desired.
In Rudh v. Baez, Case No. E046287 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 1, 2009) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the trial court’s decision.
The lower court refused to admit any evidence about tenant’s own litigation activities and attorney’s fees. Although finding that an opponent’s litigation activities may have some relevance or bearing on the reasonableness of a prevailing party’s expenditures of fees, the appellate panel did not believe the billing records of the opponent’s attorneys to be relevant. “For undue consumption of time, possible invasion of attorney-client privilege, and tangential relevance, at best, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the billings of [tenant’s] attorney on the issue of the reasonableness of plaintiff’s attorney fees award.” (Slip Opn., at p. 6.)
The Court of Appeal also believed that the trial court did award close to the requested lodestar, but discounted such items as an unbilled discount amount and thousands of dollars in 2% per month service charges imposed on client’s unpaid balance. Also, it felt the action was not difficult or complex, such that a $40,000 fee award was not justified for a $37,000 base recovery.
BLOG OBSERVATION—As we have discussed in past posts, appellate courts are not in harmony about the relevance of an opponents’ billings on the reasonableness issue. See, e.g., our past posts of June 8, 2008 [general discussion]; September 6, 2008 [Horsford II—Fifth District unpublished; information may be relevant]; September 6, 2008 [Reyes—Sixth District unpublished; information is not relevant].