Plaintiff Had Sought $344,639 In Fees, Which Lower Court Found To Be Unreasonable Based On Overstaffing, Lack Of Efficiency, And Requesting Hourly Rates Too High For The Complexity Of The Case; Multiplier Request Properly Denied.
We commend everyone to read the appellate court’s affirmance of a trial court’s reduction of an attorney’s fees request in Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. B293987 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 1, 2020) (unpublished), authored by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth A. White who is sitting by assignment on the 2/1 DCA. It has a superb summary of these topics: lodestar; trial court discretion to reduce fees; multipliers; and Song-Beverly Act (lemon) law nuances relating to fee awards.
In this matter, plaintiff won a jury verdict of $35,805.80 in a straightforward lemon law vehicle case. The problem occurred when plaintiff’s attorneys sought $344,639 in fees (the lodestar plus a .5 multiplier plus some other minor expense requests). The trial judge was aghast because the fee submissions showed that 10 attorneys worked the case; hourly rates ranging from $325 - $495 per hour were requested; many motions were “much ado about nothing”; and the case was straightforward/noncomplex in nature. The defense objected to the hourly rates and argued that at least $83,206.05 should be slashed from the fee request based on block billing and inefficiencies. After a detailed explanation of his reasoning for reducing the requested fees, the trial judge awarded $94,864 after a small offset for certain fees/costs owed to the defense, in the process denying the multiplier request. That prompted an appeal by plaintiff.
The 2/1 DCA panel affirmed because it did not see an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.
Again, we will not summarize all aspects of this unpublished decision, but it is a virtual lexicon for practitioners and others to use as far as lodestar, multiplier, and lemon law fee issues are concerned.
First of all, the trial judge made detailed explanations at the fee hearing. Plaintiff relied on federal cases requiring more detail when reducing fee awards, but these were inapt for California state court proceedings. (In fact, no statements of decision are required in fees matters, although we bloggers observe that trial judges are becoming much more detailed in their tentative or final decisions in this area.)
Second, the record belied that the lower court made an “across-the-board” percentage reduction without an adequate explanation—which distinguished other California cases (lemon law and in other areas) to the contrary.
Third, the trial judge also did not make an impermissible fee award based on the jury award to plaintiff, given that proportionality per se is not the rule of law in lemon law cases. He acknowledged that large fee awards are oft times justified in lemon law cases, but reduced for excessive hourly rates, overstaffing, and other inefficiencies.
Fourth, plaintiff argued that the defense had only asked for a smaller reduction such that the trial judge was restrained from making a larger reduction. This contention was dismissed because the defense carefully asked for a reduction “of at least” a specified amount, not to mention the lower court has discretion to go beyond a defense reduction request.
Last, but not least, the denial of a multiplier was no abuse of discretion given that the case was not complex (the novelty/difficulty factor to be assessed when positive enhancements are requested).
Comments