Filing An Appeal Did Not Stay Fee Motion Determination Absent A Stipulation, With Petitioning Attorneys Doing A Commendable Job Of Supporting The Fee Request.
This next case, Korchemny v. Piterman, Case Nos. A155483 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2021 [unpublished]; certified for publication on September 17, 2021), demonstrates how a winning party did an exemplary job of supporting their fee petition before the lower tribunal.
Winning party won a usurious note dispute where there was a contractual “prevailing party” fess clause. That party moved for attorney’s fees of $318,730.50, with the judge awarding $318,400.50 after minor deductions. The losing party appealed, to no avail.
First, loser argued that the appeal stayed a determination of any fee motion. Wrong, wrong, as we have posted on before – this is embracing a collateral issue which is not forestalled by a merits appeal. (Bankes v. Lucas, 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 368-369 (1992).)
Then, on the merits of the fee award, this decision shows how a good fee petition should be structured, with the lower and appellate courts digging it: (1) submitting detailed billing records; (2) submitting a detailed declaration by the lead attorney; (3) allocating work between certain issues; and (4) detailing why work with another party was compensable under a joint strategy rubric. Not to mention that the loser’s tenacious litigation was a factor to justify awarding the close-to-total-request ask by the winner.
Comments