Salameh v. 5th and K Master Assn., Inc., Case No. D067232 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 30, 2016) (Unpublished): $4.88 Million In Aggregate Fee Awards Upheld On Appeal.
This involved hotel unit condo owners’ over 3-year battle against the HOA and various management entities in which owners sought over $64 million for overcharging for hotel unit management services. The defense (several groups of cross-defendants) was able to obtain a dismissal of the cross-complaint, winning a combined attorney’s fees award of around $4.88 million.
Although losing parties appealed the fee awards, the fee claimants did a good job on their fee petitions: (1) documented well lodestar work, providing justification for hourly rates (some of which were quite low) based on attorney experience; (2) documented the hours expended over 3 years with detailed attorney fee declarations; and (3) voluntarily reduced the fee request by $219,375.25 for inefficient/duplicative work. Both the trial and appellate courts found this presentation persuasive, rejecting the appeal based on losing parties’ failure to make specific challenges or only relying on argument that there had been overstaffing given the detailed nature of the fee submissions.
DCCCA1, Inc. v. Diversified Product Industries, Ltd., Case No. A144195 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 30, 2016) (Unpublished): Even With Some Admitted Errors In Fee Substantiation, $428,778 Fee Award Sustained.
In this case, plaintiff won a declaratory relief action involving a settlement agreement and then sought an initial request of $605,453.81 in attorney’s fees. What it did here was: (1) retain an attorney’s fees expert who opined on the reasonableness of rates, work, and overall fees; and (2) voluntarily reduced the overall request by 5%. When the other side pointed some duplicative entries, fee claimant reduced the request down $75,783.50 for purposes of showing good faith. Fee claimant also did not request “fees on fees” for the work in preparing the fee petition paperwork. The trial judge found using 9 different attorneys at various times justified another 10% reduction, when combined with the earlier voluntary 5% reduction, netted an award of $428,778 to the prevailing party.
This held up on appeal because the record showed that none of the errors were not made in bad faith, a trial court finding which the reviewing court sustained under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.