Excessive Hourly Rates, Vague Billing Entries, Excessive Billing Entries, Work Duplication, And No Justification For Positive Multiplier Rationales By Trial Judge Constituted No Abuse Of Discretion.
FEHA plaintiffs accepted CCP § 998 offers from two defendants by which money was paid to them and which allowed for recovery of claimed preoffer fees and costs by mutual agreement or by noticed motion before the trial court is no agreement could be reached. The parties were unable to agree, with plaintiffs filing a motion to recover $379,502.37 in fees and costs (inclusive of a 1.2 lodestar multiplier). They also sought “fees on fees” for prosecuting the fee motion itself. Defendants challenged the amount of fees being claimed. The trial court found that the hourly rates were excessive, the fee substantiation had vague, excessive and duplicative time entries, and no positive multiplier should be awarded despite the contingent nature of the case. The trial judge awarded fees of $148,550 and costs of $28,671.57 (given no objections to the submitted costs bill).
The lower court’s determinations were sustained on appeal in Eib v. Sizzler USA Restaurants, Inc., Case No. C076298 (3d Dist. Mar. 2, 2018) (unpublished).
Even though defendants did not challenge the hourly rates, the trial judge still had the responsibility to determine the rates were reasonable under the lodestar analysis. Even under the FEHA liberal fee standard, the lower court still had to find the requested fees were reasonable, such that padding, inefficiencies, and duplications were much in play. The trial judge also properly did not award expert witness fees for a fee expert on the hourly rates, given that the lower court rejected the rates suggested as reasonable by the expert. Given the reduction for the billing entry infirmities, it was not erroneous to deny a multiplier. Bottom line, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting a substantially reduced fee award as compared to plaintiffs’ request.