Liability Cap Did Not Apply To Fees, Out-Of-County Attorneys Showed Good Cause To Represent Defendants In Tuolumne County, And Trial Judge Reduced Fee Request By 20%.
In Apartment Rental Assistance II, Inc. v. 80 Oak Hills, L.P., Case No. F083238 (5th Dist. Dec. 13, 2022) (unpublished), buyer plaintiffs lost a summary judgment to seller defendants where three purchase agreements had separate fee clauses. Defendants moved for fees of $677,465.10 and for $23,589.25 in costs, with the lower court awarding them $547,465.10 in fees and the entire “ask” in costs. Plaintiffs appealed.
They lost. Their main argument on entitlement was that there was a “fee cap” in one of the agreements, but a close look at it showed that it only applied to liability determinations—reinforced by no similar cap in the actual fee provisions. With respect to the amount of lodestar fees awarded, the Fifth District found no abuse of discretion. Not only did the lower court reduce the fees request by about 20% for excessive associate compensation and assembly of binders, but the out-of-town lead counsel representing defendants showed there was good reason for his firm to be litigating in Tuolumne County because he had years of experience with the clients on real estate matters such that they were justified in not using local counsel without his “experience curve.”
Comments