Hourly Rates Were Too High For Sacramento Venue, Laffey Matrix Could Be Used, And Hours Property Reduced For Inflated Request.
In Limon v. Dept. of Finance, Case No. C082501 (3d Dist. Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished), as it often times does, the likely final fight involved the award of appellate fees to prevailing plaintiffs in an RV park residential dispute arising out of the “Great Dissolution” (the disbanding of California’s redevelopment agencies). They earlier had won a nice judgment and $800,000 in fees under California’s private attorney general statute, none of which was in dispute. Plaintiffs then moved to compel payment out of a redevelopment trust fund, a request was eventually affirmed on appeal. Plaintiffs then moved for more CCP § 1021.5 fees of $630,000 (inclusive of a 1.4 multiplier). The trial judge awarded about $140,000, making reductions for too high hourly rates, work deemed duplicative/inefficient, and a 40% reduction for the personal interest to both plaintiffs and their attorneys in connection with the earlier fees award (although the final math calculation was enhanced by a positive 1.2 multiplier).
The Third District mainly affirmed, but it reversed the 40% reduction. Because Sacramento hourly rates are lower than L.A. rates, combined with the fact that Plaintiffs did not show that competent Sacramento attorneys were unavailable to them, the hourly rate reduction was in order. The trial judge also relied on the Laffey Matrix, adjusted for Sacramento cost of living differences, which was within his discretion. Reduction of work for inefficiencies/duplication was no abuse of discretion. The 1.2 multiplier was also fine. The only problem requiring a remand was the 40% reduction for attorney’s financial interest in the case, which conflated the requirement that only plaintiffs’ financial interests be considered.