82% Reduction Request Was Unreasonable Under The Circumstances.
In Huard v. Eldridge, Case No. B301903 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 19, 2021) (unpublished), the parties’ jointly owned investment property led to two series of civil harassment restraining order proceedings. The first round went to petitioner, who was awarded $4,500 out of a requested $22,543 in discretionary fees under CCP § 527.6(s). The second round went to respondent, who beat a harassment request after a two-day trial and with the lower court concluding petitioner’s claim lacked merit. Respondent was awarded his full request of $15,753 in fees, despite petitioner arguing the fee request would be reduced by 82% (inclusive of lower rates than those requested, although the requested rates were much lower than the rates claimed by petitioner’s attorneys when petitioner won reduced fees earlier).
The 2/6 DCA affirmed. The lower court, the same one deciding the merits, was the best judge about the amount of attorney’s services, with nothing about the size of the award shocking the conscience or appearing to be the product of passion. The appellate court remanded for consideration respondent’s request for appellate fees to the trial judge, even though this will be a discretionary call also.
Comments