Lower Court Also Did Not Err In Taxing Costs For Unreasonable, Unused Photocopies of Exhibits and Enlargements.
In Aud v. RRT Enterprises, LP, Case No. B340727 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 26, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for elder abuse under two statutes (including a Health & Safety Code provision) and negligence, with a jury finding in plaintiff’s favor against multiple defendants. Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees against one defendant under Health and Safety Code section 1430(b)(1)(A), which allows for fees against a facility violating a resident/patient’s rights, and the private attorney general statute. The fee request was $1,205,196, which included a 2.0 positive multiplier on the approximate $603,000 lodestar. Plaintiff also moved for costs-of-proof sanctions for the defense denial of certain requests for admissions on issues eventually proven at trial. Plaintiff further requested routine costs of $166,096.62.
The lower court awarded plaintiff $200,000 under the Health and Safety Code provision (after finding the work on the other non-compensable claims were intertwined) and not awarding a positive multiplier. It first excluded generic paralegal work which was not properly documented. From that lower subtotal, the lower court further applied a 60% across-the-board negative multiplier reduction for overstaffing/duplication (examples: 13 legal professionals involved, with 3 attorneys at a mediation) and block billing. It denied awarding fees under the private attorney general statute and also denied RFA costs-of-proof sanctions. The lower court taxed claimed costs, awarding plaintiff $78,250.54 (shaving off $24,329.10 for unreasonable exhibit photocopy and enlargement costs).
In a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Segal, the 2/7 DCA affirmed. The challenges raised issues reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. With respect to fees, the trial court was justified in reducing for several factors because the record showed the fee request was inflated. No CCP section 1021.5 fees were justified because the case was brought and prosecuted for plaintiff’s own benefit, not a broader purpose. On the costs-of-proof sanctions denial, plaintiff failed to specifically delineate the time spent to prove the issues which were the subject of the RFA denials. With respect to taxing costs (plaintiff only challenged the exhibit photocopy/enlargement reduction), that was appropriate because plaintiff was claiming reimbursement of 167,415 copies of exhibits, most of which were not used at trial—so the determination that they were not necessary or reasonable was no abuse of discretion.