Century Community Lending Co., LLC v. Saleh, Case No. B255576 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 14, 2015) (Unpublished): $61,907.50 Fee Award To Prevailing Guarantor Sustained.
In this one, lender made a full nonjudicial foreclosure credit bid, which led to a defense verdict against a sued guarantor of the loan. Based on a fees clause in the guaranty, the lower court awarded guarantor $61,907.50 in fees, an award which was affirmed on appeal. Civil Code section 1717 made the unilateral fees clause in favor of lender bilateral in nature, and it was irrelevant whether guarantor did not personally pay for fees given that she had a contingency agreement with her attorney. “Saleh did not need to prove that she was also entitled to attorneys’ fees under the contingency fee agreement with her attorney, and thus did not need to not disclose the terms of that agreement.” (Slip Op., p. 11.) Lodestar analysis governed even though guarantor was operating under a contingency arrangement.
Sulatycky v. Sajahtera, Inc., Case No. B259543 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 14, 2015) (Unpublished): $76,000 Out Of Requested $295,021.58 For Winning FEHA Defendant Affirmed.
After defendants won a summary judgment in a FEHA case, the trial judge determined that the action was groundless, awarding the defense fees of $76,000 (out of a requested $295,021.58) after making a determination of plaintiff’s ability to pay. Plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful. The trial judge’s minute order satisfied the Rosenman requirement of making written findings in a FEHA defense attorney’s fees award—although a more formal order might be better. (Leek v. Cooper, 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 420-421 (2011).) The case was found to be groundless given plaintiff never complained about the alleged discrimination and confided to a therapist that he had left his job for reasons unrelated to the discrimination allegations. The amount of the award was reasonable, given the discount for plaintiff’s ability to pay.
Yankey v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B259880 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 14, 2015) (Unpublished): $943,260 (Out of Requested $1,071,000) Fees Awarded To Winning Civil Rights Plaintiff Upheld Even Though Compensatory Damages Were Only $750,000.
42 U.S.C. § 1988, the federal civil rights statute, is a liberal prevailing party fee-shifting provision. Here, plaintiff won a $750,000 compensatory verdict based on a state pendent excessive force claim even though not finding any federal civil rights violations. The trial judge then awarded four attorneys $943,260 out of a requested $1.071 million in fees under section 1988. On appeal by the defense, the appellate court determined that plaintiffs did prevail on a pendent state claim which was based on a nucleus of operative facts relating to the federal civil rights claim—which made plaintiff a prevailing party. Given that the jury found excessive force and awarded much more than a nominal sum, the fee award was proportionate to the damages, at only 1.25 time the award, even though strict proportionality is not required in the civil rights area. The 2/8 DCA also found that the trial judge did not have to become a “time auditor,” quoting Fox v. Vice, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 2216 (2011): “The trial courts are tasked with doing ‘rough justice, not [] achiev[ing] auditing perfection. So trial courts may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating the allocating an attorney’s time.’”