California State Court Rules, More Lax, Steer the Determination.
In a long-standing feud of a sense, a trial court in Ripken v. Ballard, Case No. C070158 (3d Dist. Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished) found that defendant was in contempt for disobeying a 2002 judgment restraining her and her agents from trespassing, blocking, or putting debris on the neighboring property of prevailing plaintiff based on the existence of an easement. (Defendant apparently operated an auto/RV repair business on her property, asserted by her opponent to leave parked vehicles and car parts on the driveway/adjacent property.)
However, defendant apparently was not anticipating that the lower court would award plaintiffs $25,811 in attorney’s fees for proving contempt under the CCP §1218(a) contempt fee-shifting statute.
Losing litigant appealed, but only really challenged the amount of fees, which are reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Not surprisingly, she lost her appeal.
Appellant argued that the winner had submitted no time records to review. However, in stark contrast to federal cases which generally require detailed time billings, the California state rule is different: counsel declarations about work efforts, sans detailed billings, are proper substantiation of lodestar fee efforts. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254 (2001); Steiny & Co. v. California Electric Supply Co., 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 293 (2000).) Winner’s attorney did provide counsel substantiation declarations, and that was enough under state law.
And, winning respondents/plaintiffs can seek fees for winning on appeal.
Comments