Fifth District Finds Nothing Wrong in Substantial Fee Award.
Hopper Properties v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., Case No. F060235 (5th Dist. July 7, 2011) (unpublished) involved interesting facts and a substantial fee award affirmed on appeal.
Owner/landlord Hopper and tenant Payless settled with a six-year-old boy who was bitten by a bat inside a Payless store. Payless then sought to recoup its settlement contribution from Hopper based on a lease indemnification clause, with the lower court finding that it did not shift responsibility (apparently, because the bat incident was caused by Payless’ own sign and keeping the doors not shut tight enough during certain hours). Hopper requested a fee award of $262,882.05, and was granted an eventual award of $247,480.05, with the lower court reducing the award for fees not actually paid by the client to its lawyers.
Payless appealed, and lost.
In a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Franson, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion. The hourly rates claimed were reasonable in nature, and the case was strenuously litigated by both sides–but Hopper’s attorney provided excellent representation. After all, what more is there to say? If you litigate tenaciously and ultimately lose, you might have to pay all the full monty (or close to it). Point made.
Townsend’s big-eared bat. Wikipedia.