Apportionment Was Required In This Context, Plus A Relook At “Block Billing” Despite A 20% Reduction By The Trial Judge On The First Go-Around.
In City of Patterson v. Patterson Hotel Associates, Case No. F074038 (5th Dist. Jan. 11, 2019) (unpublished), City of Patterson prevailed on its complaint and defensed a cross-complaint involving a commercial project. However, the rub was that the cross-complainants included an inverse condemnation claim which has a unilateral fee-shifting clause in their favor, not cross-defendant’s favor. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1036.) City, feeling emboldened, moved to recoup fees of a little over $1 million for all of the work, arguing everything was intertwined, so that the spoils go the victor. Loser argued that fees for the inverse condemnation work had to be excluded and that block billing made it impossible to review the fee request. The trial judge did not buy the legal argument, but awarded $673,600 in fees to City, reducing the fee request by 20% based on the uncertainties created by block billing.
The Fifth District reversed and remanded the fee award for another bite.
The problem here was that the unilateral, pro-plaintiff inverse condemnation time had to be apportioned based upon reasoning in Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 119 Cal.App.4th 498, 504 (2004). Because the inverse condemnation work was not compensable, it needed a restudy by the trial judge—especially given the City had the burden to produce information sufficient to determine how much time was spent on particular claims. However, some apportionment or percentage discount was necessary.
That then led the Fifth District to look again at the block billing issue. Reading in between the lines, the reviewing court understood the discretion to trial judges on block billing but wanted a better read on whether block billing prevented a “reasoned apportionment of fees.” So, another look is in order on this one.
Justice Snauffer, a recent Fifth District appointee, authored this opinion.
Comments