M&M's 2008 “Top Ten” Attorney’s Fees Cases

 

Part 2 of 2 – We Finish Off With The Last Five Cases And An  “Honorable Mention”

     Oh, the suspense … and the ball has not yet dropped from above Times Square. You have to go to our prior post to see the first part of this list. Here is the rest of our top ten 2008 attorney’s fees decisions.

5. Christian Research v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4^th 1345 (2008): Wholesale Fee Reductions In Order Where Fee Claimant Blockbills, Makes Vague Entries, And Overstaffs The Case.

     Decision contains a good discussion on awarding fees in an anti-SLAPP motion context. Decision suggests that winner should apportion out work related only to the anti-SLAPP motion, should avoid blockbilling, and should not bill for unnecessary duplication. Appellate court sustained wholesale reductions in fees on these grounds, indicating such wide-ranging reductions can be made by state trial judges.

     [Discussed in our August 13, 2008 post; Fourth District, Division 3; author: Justice Aronson]

4. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9^th Cir. 2008): Fee “Haircuts” Above 10% Must Be Specifically Justified By District Judges.

     District judges must specifically explain “fee haircuts” of more than 10% when reducing fee requests. Contrast this rule with the broader discretion given to state trial judges in Alnor (case #5).

     [Discussed in our August 2, 2008 post; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; author: Chief Judge Kozinski]

3. EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler Family Trust, 162 Cal.App.4^th 770 (2008): Case Discusses Lodestar Reduction and Enhancement Factors For Fee Awards Under Civil Code Section 1717.

     Decision contains an extensive discussion of lodestar reductions factor in Civil Code section 1717 fee situations. A dissenting opinion by Presiding Justice Cooper has a useful discussion of factors used to increase or reduce the lodestar in both section 1717 and public attorney general cases.

     [Discussed in our May 12, 2008 post; Second District, Division 8; majority author: Justice Rubin; dissenting author: Presiding Justice Cooper]

2. Vasquez v. State of California, 45 Cal.4^th 243 (2008): Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 Fee Award Does Not Require Reasonable Settlement Efforts As A Mandatory Prerequisite In “Noncatalyst” Cases.

     Reasonable settlement efforts are not a prerequisite for a fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 in “noncatalyst” cases, though it is one of the discretionary factors for trial courts to weigh in determining whether private enforcement was sufficiently necessary to justify awarding fees.

     [Discussed in our November 20, 2008 post; California Supreme Court; author: Justice Werdegar]

1. Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 42 Cal.4^th 1142 (2008): Expert Witness Fees Not Recoverable As Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 Costs.

     Expert witness fees are not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (the private general statute) in addition to attorney’s fees authorized by the same statutory scheme, disapproving Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, 235 Cal.App.3d 1407 (1991).

     [California Supreme Court; author: Justice Moreno]

Honorable Mention: Ritter & Ritter, Inc. v. The Churchill Condominium Assn., 166 Cal.App.4^th 103 (2008): Condominium Owner Recovers Substantial Fee From HOA, With Dissent Lamenting Fees Spent On A Matter That Could Have Been Arbitrated In A Couple of Days.

     Decision involved a homeowners association (HOA)-homeowner dispute in which homeowners were awarded $531,159 in fees even though they won only $4,620 in damages from a jury and obtained a mandatory injunction from the trial court. The dissent is memorable for lamenting the amount of fees spent on a matter that should have been arbitrated in a couple of days.

     [Discussed in our July 24, 2008 post; Second District, Division8; majority author: Presiding Justice Cooper; dissenting author: Justice Rubin]