Lack of Detailed Reasoning Did Not Translate Into Abuse of Discretion, With Lower Court Having Plenty of Ammunition To Lower Requested Fees.
We know that the law in many fee-shifting areas says that awarded fees do not have to be proportional to the ultimate damages awarded, especially in civil rights or consumer areas. However, we would warn all of our followers or first time readers that proportionality is still a factor used by judges in awarding fees in many situations we have posted on over the years, as the next case illustrates from a recent vantage point.
In Kamali v. Cal. Dept. of Transportation, Case Nos. B247756/B250408 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 17, 2015) (unpublished), a plaintiff prevailed in a FEHA reasonable accommodation/interactive process failure case by which he was awarded $663,983 in total compensatory damages by a jury. He then moved under FEHA’s fee-shifting statute for an award of $3,639,238.31 in attorney’s fees, which drew a vigorous opposition by Caltrans. The lower court awarded $780,660.80 in fees, triggering a cross-appeal from plaintiff.
The fee award stood up on appeal. Despite the lack of a detailed explanation of the basis of the award, the appellate court agreed that no statement of decision or explanatory rulings are required under California law, especially where plaintiff never requested detailed rulings. [BLOG OBSERVATION—The DCA panel here might have been more sympathetic had such a request been made, so PRACTICE TIP for everyone out there.] There was conflicting testimony as to the reasonable hourly rates, reasonableness of certain work, and degree of success given that some claims were tossed at the pre-trial stage. The defense expert had suggested a maximum recovery of $780,660.80 (although Caltrans argued this should then be cut in half). The trial court obviously credited the defense expert’s analysis to a substantial degree, with the appellate court not willing to disturb a trial court’s ruling based on handling the case for over three years.
Comments