Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees, Trespass: Fee Recovery To Plaintiffs In Federal-State Court Agricultural Trespass Case Affirmed On Appeal

Fees In Federal Case Were A Continuation Of The Entire Litigation, And Reconstructed Time Can Be Credited Under The Right Circumstances.

            The parties in Shuler v. Capital Agricultural Property Services, Inc., Case No. B294555 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 24, 2020) (unpublished) came to the end of an agricultural trespass case which went before both federal and state courts, resulting in two published decisions before the 2/6 DCA (based in Ventura).  At the end of the day, under a trespass fee-shifting statute (CCP § 1021.9), the trial judge awarded plaintiffs about $1.271 million in fees (which included a positive 1.4 multiplier).

            That result was affirmed on appeal.  The argument that plaintiffs did not “prevail” for purposes of the trespass fee-shifting statute did not resonate because it was simply a continuation of the overall battle in which plaintiffs prevailed.  No apportionment was required because all of the legal theories related to common facts, with no California case requiring a statement of decision on a fee motion (although some selective cases may need a more detailed explanation).  The defense then argued that certain clients could only be liable for their proportion of fault in the case with respect to fee apportionment, but that would fly in the face of the mandatory fee-shifting provision so as frustrate overall responsibility for fees—so they should be joint and several.   (Friends of the Trails v. Blasius, 78 Cal.App.4^th 810, 837-838 (2000) [CCP § 1021.5 case].)  Although reconstructed time is subject to credibility challenges, it can support a fee motion if there is adequate information to reach reasonable estimates of the work described.  (Cates v. Chiang, 213 Cal.App.4^th 791, 821 (2013).)  The 1.4 multiplier award was no abuse of discretion given the risk involved in the lengthy litigation.