Marriage of Howard, Case No. H036510 (6th Dist. June 6, 2012) (Unpublished).
In this one, ex-husband waived any challenge to a $16,162 fee award because he failed to appear at an OSC and oppose the request. This was found to be a forfeiture based on his failure to object to the an error at the lower court level. (In re Urayna L., 75 Cal.App.4th 883, 886 (1999).)
Citizens for Upholding Zoning Regulations v. City of Palo Alto, Case No. H036691 June 6, 2012) (Unpublished).
The next opinion involves a CEQA winning plaintiff seeking to recover appellate fees and costs after sustaining an earlier trial court level fee award before the Sixth District in an earlier cause. Plaintiff moved to recoup $160,504.25 in appeal-related fees and costs, but the lower court awarded it $120,504.25 of the request based on the perception that the overall time expended was excessive--a 25% reduction. This fee award was affirmed on appeal because the trial court did offer a reasonable explanation for its discretionary call, distinguishing it from the lack of any reason requiring a remand in Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp., 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 101 (2009) [discussed in our October 7, 2009 post].