Prevailing Parties Requested $393,945.30 In Fees, But Only Awarded $38,920.14—A Win, But Adverse Party Still Unsuccessfully Appealed.
The next case, Duncombe v. Barfresh Food Group, Inc., Case No. B308385 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 31, 2022) (unpublished), demonstrates an important lesson: where you obtain a significantly diminished fee award at the trial court level, you need to think long and hard on whether to appeal.
In this one, plaintiff/cross-defendant won a jury verdict as far as obtaining consulting fees under a contract with the other side relating to consulting services in Australia. That verdict was $43,962.56, with nothing recovered on the defense’s cross claims. Based on some denial of RFAS ultimately proven at trial, the defense moved for attorney’s fees of $393,945.30 under the RFA costs-of-proof sanctions provision. They also sought some routine costs of $9,000, with the non-prevailing party not filing a motion to tax costs. In the end, the trial judge awarded $38,920.14 in costs-of-proof sanctions fees and the entirety of the requested costs. The adverse party did appeal despite the diminished fee award.
The appellate court affirmed. The RFAs denied were material, such that the inquiry focused on the reasonableness of the fees. The trial judge had a lot of discretion in this area given her involvement of the case. The side asking for fees utilized the D.C. Laffey Matrix to support the requested hourly rates, a matrix which is an acceptable one to use within the discretion of the lower court. As far as the costs award, the adverse party never filed a motion to tax costs such that the challenge was waived.
Comments