Variety Of Costs, Fee Entitlement, And Lodestar Issues Explored In This Unpublished Opinion.
Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases, Case No. F083138 (5th Dist. Aug. 24, 2021) (unpublished) was a Los Angeles-venued case which produced a global settlement complete with a provision for certain parties to bear attorney’s fees and costs by class counsel. Class counsel sought to recover $3,348,160 in attorney’s and paralegal fees (4,538.8 hours at $720 per hour for attorneys; 679.5 hours at $110 or $125 per hour for paralegals). However, the trial judge awarded class counsel $2,269,400 in attorney’s fees and $80,224 in paralegal fees, reducing the attorney requested hourly rate from $720 to $500 per hour. He also allocated fees among different parties and rejected two parties’ attempts to pay the awards out over time under Government Code sections 984 and 970.6. He denied a 2.5 positive enhancement request. The trial judge also taxed over $24,000 in routine costs requested by class counsel, triggering an appeal by the class.
The Fifth District (although based in Fresno, not Los Angeles, but assigned the case on appeal for neutrality reasons) reversed and remanded with some specific instructions. With respect to fees, the appellate panel initially determined that the settlement agreement did authorize fee/costs entitlement and then found that the trial judge’s reasoning on the lodestar was unclear, especially as to why the requested hourly rate was discounted downward from $720 and with a “Great Recession” lower rate rationale not explaining why higher rates were not justified from when it ended (2010 going forward). Equally salient was the fact the lodestar could not be diminished solely or primarily because a governmental entity was the party with fee/costs exposure. But the lower court did properly allocate fee/costs recovery among some parties and correctly denied the periodic payment requests because a fees/costs judgment was not a tort judgment against a public entity under section 984 and the requesting entities did not show that the L.A. County Board of Supervisors passed a hardship ordinance for purposes of satisfying section 970.6. Finally, on the routine cost issues, class counsel did not have to use Judicial Council costs memorandum forms (they are optional only), the trial judge impliedly allowed counsel more time to file the costs memorandum, and there were arithmetic discrepancies which the appellate court could not decipher—sending all of this back for a re-do, including a relook at the enhancement request.
Comments