$224,124 Fee Award Out of Requested $260,595 Deemed Reasonable, Although Preferred Substantiation Should Be More Detailed in Nature.
Defendants prevailing in a summary judgment proceeding involving a deed of trust with a fees clause sought to recover $252,595 in fees plus $8,000 in costs for a grand fee/costs award of $260,595. The trial court reduced hours plus the hourly rate, awarding defendants $224,125 out of the requested amounts.
The other side appealed in Namvar v. DB Private Wealth Mortg. Ltd., Case No. B241788 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 16, 2013) (unpublished), mainly challenging the fee petitioners’ substantiation in support of the fee request--after all, the requesting defendants relied on attorney declarations with spreadsheets of work effort, but heavily redacted as far as the work descriptions.
No error was found.
California law allows counsel declarations to suffice as substantiation, without the need for billing statements to be provided. (City of Coltan v. Singletary, 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784-785 (2012) [reviewed in our June 1, 2012 post].) Here, defendants’ counsel did attach a detailed spreadsheet which did pass muster even if heavily excised. However, the appellate court did give a nice practice tip in this case, which bears noting for all practitioners submitting fee petitions in state court: “The better and preferred practice is to submit either billing sheets or more detailed declarations, and to refrain from such extensive (here, complete) redacting.” (Slip Opn., pp. 20-21.)
Comments