“Be Careful What You Ask For” Is the Theme Here, Despite a Reversal of Fortune.
Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. v. Quinn, Case No. D061776 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 16, 2013) (unpublished) is a classic example of “be careful for what you ask for” during the case where there is a sudden reversal of fortune as far as fee entitlement.
In this one, tenants had prevailed in an option/possession dispute after a one-day bench trial. Tenants then sought a pretrial/trial work lodestar of $126,854.87 in their attorney fee request, given the lease had a fees clause. Landlord threw a hissy fit, labeling it astonishing and arguing only $27,045.15 was a reasonable number. The trial court agreed somewhat more with landlord, awarding tenants $35,000 in fees. Landlord appealed to the appellate court, which reversed the prior judgment as a matter of law--making landlord the now prevailing party. Then, landlord moved to recover $235,276.47 in fees, including $145,739 for the services that tenants, when they were prevailing party, requested $126,854.87. (You probably can see where this is going.) The trial court found the same $35,000 awarded previously to tenants should be the pretrial/trial fee award to landlord, supplemented by another $89,034.97 for posttrial/appellate work--a grand total of $124,034.97.
Landlord appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its lodestar analysis and should have awarded more in fees.
Not so, said the appellate court in a 3-0 decision.
The lower court properly did factor in a comparison of each side’s work, even allowing landlord to explain (which it did not) why more money than the $35,000 should be awarded for pretrial/trial work. Landlord argued that the lower court had to “show her work,” parroting what the Ninth Circuit has said to federal district judges (“show me the math”). However, California state law is different: the trial judge did not have to issue a statement of decision in a fee proceeding.
As far as reasonableness of the amounts awarded, landlord failed to justify departing from the prior $35,000 award to tenants, especially given its vigorous opposition to tenants’ prior request which was below what landlord wanted. The lower court only cut appellate work by $501, such that the second component of the award was no abuse of discretion.
Comments