Second District, Division 6 Affirms $125,290 Fee Award in Action Where Plaintiff Settled For $126,000 on Various Counts.
Settlement agreements are generally enforced by their terms, especially where they involve enforcement of public policy fee-shifting statutes. The next case demonstrates this principle very well.
In Rodriguez v. Victoria Ventura Health Care LLC, Case No. B216355 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 24, 2010) (unpublished), defendants agreed to a settlement agreement under which they settled a negligence, elder neglect, and Patients’ Right (Health & Saf. Code, § 1430(b)) (PR) action for $126,000. The settlement agreement (through acceptance of a CCP § 998 offer) provided that plaintiff would be awarded attorney’s fees on the PR cause of action in an amount to be determined on noticed motion, because Health and Safety Code section 1430(b) provides that a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees. (However, the fee-shifting provision only applies as against a skilled nursing facility licensee.) Even though plaintiff sought $247,104 in lodestar fees and over $19,000 in costs in subsequent proceedings (as well as a 2.0 multiplier), the trial court awarded $125,290 in attorney’s fees (after applying a 1.3 multiplier) and $7,164.37 in costs. Defendants appealed.
Defendants primarily argued that the trial court erred in not apportioning fees between the negligence/elder neglect claims and the PR claim. This did not go very far, because the lower court did allocate fees.
Beyond that, the “no overlapping fee allocation” argument had no merit in this context, because the PR claim fee-shifting provision was based on a public policy statute that should not thwart an award of fees where apportionment of fees is difficult to do. (Slip Opn., p. 7.)
The 1.3 lodestar multiplier was no abuse of discretion, given that the trial court reduced the lodestar amount by 60.5% and then enhanced with a multiplier for a complex case.
However, the appellate court did reverse the fee award against one defendant who was not named in the PR claim and was not a skilled nursing facility licensee. In a word, fees could not be awarded against this entity, although the fee award was affirmed as against the defendant licensee.