Trial Judge Improperly Cut Stipulated Fees By Almost 50%.
In Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC, Case No. 142321 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 28, 2015) (unpublished), the parties reached a settlement agreement in a case arising under Proposition 65, which does allow recovery for attorney’s fees by a successful party under CCP § 1021.5. The case involved allegations that defendant used a carcinogenic chemical in certain food extracts, flavorings, etc. without adequate Proposition 65 warnings. Although incurring fees around $102,000, the parties stipulated plaintiff’s attorneys would receive $72,500 under the settlement. However, the lower court reduced the stipulated fees by about half to $35,839.67.
Plaintiff did successfully appeal the fee cut. The lower court could not add to or modify the consent judgment pursuant to the settlement unless it set aside the whole settlement—following dictates of CCP § 664.6 and Proposition 65 settlement statutory provisions. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising cv. Southland Corp., 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1164 (2000); Health & Safety Code, § 25249.7(f)(4).) It could approve the settlement, but could not modify the fee award downward. So, the matter was remanded for an “all or nothing” approval or denial of the entire settlement.