$145,000 Minimum in Requested Fees Denied in Entirety.
Although the result in this case may seem harsh, it does underscore the need to provide adequate substantiation in support of a fee request. Failure to provide sufficient lodestar information may mean you could well whiff out at the plate, as the party did in the next case we explore.
Prevailing party was denied recovery for over $145,000 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 because it failed to set forth the amount of fees being sought and failed to provide any evidence of the attorney’s hourly rate, time entries, billing memos, invoices, or work summaries to support any amount of requested fees as well as failed to explain how the attorney could represent the party while he was on inactive status with the State Bar.
The appellate court in Pacific Systems v. Giant Skateboard Distribution, Case No. B234026 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 13, 2012) (unpublished) sustained the fee denial. The main problem was that the moving fee claimant sought to have the lower court take judicial notice of prior papers, failing to recognize that judicial notice does not reach the truth of the matters being asserted–with the truth needing to be taken into account for purposes of proving the fee request. Judicial notice alone did not cut it, so that there was a dearth of evidence to support the fee request.