Multipliers: Dicta In Unpublished Case Implies That Fee Agreement With “Incurred” Language Did Not Prevent A Multiplier

Appellate Decision Suggested That San Dieguito Partnership Decision Was Undermined By PLCM Group.

            Because appellant really failed to support challenges to a fee decision, dicta in Counts v. Chadwick, Case No. A163282 (1^st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 15, 2022) (unpublished) has more importance for practitioners in fee proceedings.  Specifically, appellant claimed that an award of a multiplier was improper because the attorney fee agreement only allowed for recovery of attorney’s fees “incurred.”  Although indicating that appellant did not correctly cite San Dieguito Partnership v. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Etc. Authority, 61 Cal.App.4^th 910, 919 (1998) to support the proposition, the Counts appellate court observed that if this was the ruling in San Dieguito, it was later undermined by the holding in PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4^th 1084, 1097, fn. 5 (2000), which held that unless there was an express language capping the amount to be awarded or indicating no multiplier could be awarded, nothing prevented a multiplier award—as was done in the decision.