However, Prevailing Party Properly Awarded Apportioned Fees Of $49,875 Rather Than Requested $318,214 In Fees Against Defendant Landlord; Prevailing Defendant Property Manager Improperly Granted Routine Costs Because Motion Did Not Mention That Defendant And Nothing Showed The Costs Were Incurred.
In Goins v. Williams, Case Nos. A152828/A153632 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 14, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff tenant won an inhabitability/violation of the Oakland Tenant Protection Ordinance action against defendant landlord (but did not win against defendant property manager), while defeating landlord’s cross-complaint focusing on negligent upkeep of the premises, all happening after a 5-day bench trial. Plaintiff tenant moved to recoup $318,214 in fees under the Ordinance, which has a unilateral fee-shifting provision in favor of tenants. Defendant landlord’s attorney moved for $11,615.65 in routine costs but failed to specify whether the motion was filed on behalf of property manager, landlord, or both. The trial judge denied tenant’s motion to strike costs and awarded property manager $5,810.32. Everyone appealed, with tenant claiming in a cross-appeal that the fee award was too low.
The 1/3 DCA affirmed the fee award but vacated the costs award.
The fee denial was proper because the lower court was within its discretion to do its own apportionment of time based on limited success by tenant on some of her claims after reducing lead attorney’s hourly rate a bit. However, the lower court erred by awarding costs to property manager because (1) no application for costs was filed by property manager, and (2) nothing showed that any costs were actually incurred by property manager given that two defendants were represented by the same defense counsel (Charton v. Harkey, 247 Cal.App.4th 730, 744 (2016)) [discussed in our May 24, 2016 post].
Comments