Substantiation And Reasonableness Challenges Rebuffed On Appeal.
In San Vicente Investment, LP v. Trammell Crow Santa Monica Development, LLC, Case No. B296147 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 1, 2020) (unpublished), sophisticated litigants battled it out over five years in litigation involving lots of law and motion, discovery, and then two rounds of largely successful summary adjudication motions by the defense—not to mention plaintiff’s numerous attempts to get a reconsideration of the summary adjudication rulings and after a nonsuit of the remaining case at trial, merits determinations affirmed earlier on appeal.
What then ensued is what we blog on. Defendant sought $2,349,378.93 in contractual attorney’s fees, providing a detailed declaration from the lead associate with specific timekeeper, billing rate, charts of total work for seven identified phases of litigation, and totals of hours spent/total fees billed by defense counsel. The trial judge wanted work spent on a third-party indemnity parsed out, such that the defense wisely filled supplemental information requesting $2,135,688.75 in fees after excising the indemnity work--detailed information reviewed in depth by the deciding lower court. The trial judge granted the entire “lesser” request. Plaintiff was miffed, challenging both the fee substantiation and amount of fees awarded.
The 2/1 DCA affirmed. With respect to substantiation, the main supporting declaration provided enough detail, including the work performed by others. Beyond that, the trial court based the award on broader experience as far fee recovery in litigation of the sort, showing comportment by decreasing the fee for indemnity activities. The large amount of the fees award was reasonable given the other side’s litigation activities, with the appellate panel indicating that caution needed to be given to using what another side spent on fees unless the activities were comparable. Duplicative/overstaffing is a legitimate concern; however, where the litigation ebb and flows over time, there can be valid temporary changes in a legal staffing roster which may be reasonable, all circumstances considered.
Comments