“Extraordinarily Broad Attorney Fees Agreement” Sealed The Deal.
In Walters v. Moore, Case No. G058689 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff and defendant formed an LLC with an Operating Agreement that provided for the recovery of all reasonable fees, costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing party “[i]n the event that any dispute between the Company and the Members or among the Members should result in litigation, arbitration or any other alternative dispute resolution procedure . . .”
At some point, the LLC took out a bank loan which each party (along with three other parties who were also named plaintiffs in this case) separately guaranteed. Plaintiff and defendant orally agreed to repay the loan 50/50. However, plaintiff alleged defendant was repaying less than the agreed-upon 50% of the loan, and litigation on the oral agreement ensued. After three years of litigation, and a 4-day trial, the trial court found in favor of plaintiff on the equitable contribution claim – awarding approximately $60,000. The trial court also found in favor of defendant on his first amended cross-complaint, which sought $200,258.05, for contribution and breach of an oral contract – but awarded him nothing.
Plaintiff then moved post-judgment for $321,712.50 in fees with no multiplier. Plaintiff’s request was supported by a detailed spreadsheet identifying the hours spent and tasks performed by plaintiff’s counsel and declarations supporting their hourly rates. Plaintiff’s counsel then submitted a supplemental declaration to correct for an overstatement in hours – resulting in a downward adjustment of $2,044.50. After further reduction by the trial court, it awarded $287,256 finding it reflected a reasonable number of attorney fees at a reasonable rate.
Defendant appealed – arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to: 1) reduce the fee award for claims in which plaintiff did not prevail; 2) apportion the award between plaintiff and three other plaintiffs in the case; and 3) failed to provide an “analysis” of its ruling.
The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Moore, affirmed – finding no abuse of discretion.
First, the trial court was not required to lower the fee award based on plaintiff’s unsuccessful claims. Plaintiff, with a net monetary recovery, was the prevailing party pursuant to § 1032(a)(4). The parties’ broadly phrased attorney fees agreement obligated defendant to pay the reasonable attorney fees of the net prevailing party, without regard to prevailing claims.
Second, the trial court’s disallowance of $32,412 of plaintiff’s fee request – reflecting fees incurred prior to the third amended complaint wherein plaintiff was added as a named plaintiff – demonstrated it attempted to reasonably apportion the fees.
Finally, the trial court was not required to explain its lodestar analysis. (In re Tobacco Cases I (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 570, 589 [trial court “not required to explain its rationale” for an attorney fee award]; Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 101 [“there is no general rule requiring trial courts to explain their decisions on motions seeking attorney fees”]; RiverWatch v. County of San Diego Dept. of Environmental Health (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 768, 776 [a trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed “absent a showing that there is no reasonable basis in the record for the award”].)
BLOG COMMENT: Co-Contributor Mike Hensley consulted with plaintiff’s counsel, Richard A. Jones, from the Law Offices of Richard A. Jones, in this case and was impressed with Ric’s vigorous representation of his client. Congratulations go out to Ric and his team for a very well-fought appeal and great results for the client!
Comments