Constitutional Rights Were Vindicated in Prior Published Decision, So Awarding 10% Was Not Right, Appellate Court Says.
Usually, when it comes to the amount of fees awarded, an abuse of discretion standard is hard to hurdle. However, the facts, the facts, as Sergeant Friday, would say (“just the facts, ma’am”), can make all the difference, as Anchor Pacifica Mgt. v. Green, Case No. B253529 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates.
In this one, plaintiff was certified as an eligible tenant for a low-income housing unit and got a reversal in a prior published opinion of her eviction without good cause, using publicly funded lawyers to help her with the overturn. Here is the attorney fee rub: there was a lease agreement fees clause giving rise to fee entitlement under Civil Code section 1717. She then requested to recover attorney’s fees of over $937,000, based on a lodestar of $468,800 (with the L.A. attorneys claiming hourly rates of $800) to be enhanced by a positive 2.0 multiplier. The other side hired a fee expert, vigorously opposing the fee request.
The lower court was not impressed and seemed to credit a lot of the fee opposition. It awarded plaintiff $87,900 in fees, based on a $300/hourly rate, 50% reduction in fees (as well as other adjustments), and no multiplier—only about 10% of the requested amount.
The appellate court reversed, finding the fee award way too low given that plaintiff did vindicate constitutional, low-income rights in a published decision against a well-heeled opponent.
Civil Code section 1717 fees are to be fully compensatory in nature, said the reviewing court, which somewhat set where this decision would ultimately go. Although the $800 hourly rate was likely too high, the $300 rate was too low and the delta was inexplicable to the higher court. Also, the lower court reduced fees too much for appellate work, obviously not appreciative of its “higher” caliber. (Appellate lawyers are gonna love this reasoning.) Finally, a multiplier of some nature was probably in the offing based on the nature of the rights being vindicated. So, this one gets remanded for a substantial fee “re-do.”