Non-Local Counsel Rates Of A Higher Nature Approved Because No Authorities Showed That They Could Not Be Imposed Under Section 1717, Given Lower Fees Were Used Anyway.
In Patterson Frozen Foods, Inc. v. California Valley Land Co., Case No. H047357 (6th Dist. May 28, 2020) (unpublished), one group of defendants who were alleged to stand in the shoes of other defendants which were subject to a contractual fee clause, as successors. This defendant group prevailed. Well, they also obtained a substantial fee award of $1,359,928.29 and a cost award of $40,267.11. The appeal of these awards did not succeed, given that the declaratory relief allegations showed that these defendants were being sued “on the contract” for section 1717 purposes. Prevailing defendants were alleged to have to stood “in the shoes” of a party to the contract fee clause, enough for fee entitlement exposure. (Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com, 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1917-1018 (2013).) With respect to the challenge that nonlocal attorney rates of a higher nature were excessive, the appellate court indicated no authority was cited to show that higher nonlocal rates could not be justified under section 1717, given that appellant’s authorities applied in the FEHA or other public statutory contexts. Given that nonlocal counsel did reduce their rates to be more in line with lower venue rates, no abuse of discretion occurred in this particular case.