Also, Failure To Itemize Expenses Incurred For RFA Denials Prevented Imposition Of Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions.
The standard of review is critical in appellate matters as well as the development of the record below. Appellant, the successful defendant in a residential unlawful detainer case, found that out in Kennedy v. Morin, Case No. B254871 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 22, 2015) (unpublished).
There, defendant won a jury trial based on the inhabitability of premises as against an eviction suit by the losing landlord, with the jury determining all of the alleged past due rent/damages should not be awarded but reduced entirely for the rental conditions. No one argued there was an absence of fee entitlement, based on a lease fees clause and inhabitability fee shifting statute. However, defendant was apparently shocked when the lower court awarded only $10,000 out of a requested $70,000 in attorney’s fees.
That determination was affirmed on appeal because the amount of fees award is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Below, the parties presented conflicting declarations on the worth of the defense work efforts, with the lower court crediting the plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that the worth of the unlawful detainer work by the defense was between $5,000-10,000—especially with the plaintiff’s attorney testifying he did U.D. trial work on a flat per-daily fee basis. The appellate court determined the trial judge was entitled to credit plaintiff’s declarations over those of the defense on this issue.
Defendant also asked for a flat additional amount for RFA costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420. However, the defense had failed to develop an adequate showing below by inadequately correlating the specific expenses incurred in proving contrary facts at trial to the particularized RFA denials. The RFA sanctions denial held up on appeal, too.
Comments