However, Because Plaintiffs Entitled To Judgment On All Claims, Matter Remanded To See If Additional Trial Fees Should Be Awarded As Well As Calculation Of Winning Appellate Fees.
Boy, oh boy, what appellate decisions can do with respect to fee awards.
In California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Cal. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Case Nos. B305604/B309145 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 15, 2022) (published), plaintiffs had won some pieces and lost some pieces on summary judgment/adjudication motions relating to civil rights, due process, and illegal expenditure of funds claims relating to the theory that hearing officers have an irreconcilable conflict of interest in advocating DMV interests and acting as triers of fact in DUI hearings. The lower court, based on plaintiffs’ partial victories, found plaintiffs were the prevailing parties, awarding them $2,123,591 in attorney’s fees under California’s private attorney general statute, but denying their request for fees of $5,242,243 (the lodestar plus a two-times positive multiplier—mainly denying the multiplier and cutting down the lodestar request from $2,621,121.50 to $2,123,591).
On appeal, the 2/4 DCA decided that plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims. As such, it affirmed the fees award, finding that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in determining that no multiplier was required because the matter did go to trial, there some skill missteps on the summary judgment motions, and the contingency risk was reflected in the hourly rates awarded to winning attorneys. However, because plaintiffs had additional success, the matter was remanded to see if any more trial fees were warranted as well as to calculate reasonable appellate fees to be awarded to plaintiffs for winning on appeal.
Comments