The Problem Was That The Case Was Routine Such That Hours Billed For “Cut And Paste” Activities Were Excessive, With A 25% Positive Multiplier Properly Denied.
In Fishback v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B298677 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 14, 2021) (unpublished), a lemon law plaintiff was awarded a lesser sum of attorney’s fees of $20,000 out of a requested $52,834,30 ($40,113.75 lodestar plus a 25% positive enhancement). Plaintiff was not satisfied with this fee awarding, triggering an appeal. When it comes to the amount of fees, plaintiff could not surmount the deferential abuse of discretion standard. The lower court found that this was a routine case, the discovery was “cookie-cutter” and “cut and paste,” there was no law and motion proceedings except for the fee motion, there was limited discovery, and a settlement was reached early in the case. None of these conclusions were disturbed on appeal. However, we will give an example of fees found to be excessive—counsel traveling by car from Rancho Palos Verdes to Burlingame and back to defend a deposition, given a flight from LAX to SFO takes about one hour—did not justify counsel’s billing for 16.1 hours of automobile travel, as the trial judge could determine as not being reasonable in nature.
Also, the 25% positive enhancement correctly rejected due to the lower court’s conclusion that this was a garden-variety lemon law case.
Comments