Fee Request Reduced On Hourly Rate Ask And Work On An Unfiled Summary Judgment Motion, With Plaintiff’s Multiplier Request Being Denied.
Plaintiff accepted a defense CCP § 998 offer waiving a car purchase deficiency and paying her $2,001, with the lower court allowed to determine an award of attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff via a motion. She moved for $98,770 in fees (inclusive of a 1.5 positive multiplier), but the lower court only awarded $30,450. She appealed in First Technology Federal Credit Union v. Trojan, Case No. H049919 (6th Dist. Mar. 10, 2023) (unpublished).
She did not obtain anything better on appeal, especially given that the lack of a reporter’s transcript of the fee hearing hampered review. The lower court properly reduced the requested hourly rates by Santa Clara attorneys, because those rates were too high for the type of work which would be charged by attorneys in Monterey (the case venue). There is a nice discussion of the degree of specificity that a fee claimant needs to show for purposes of justifying retention of an out-of-venue attorney charging higher rates, given that the lower court implicitly found plaintiff’s showing on this issue to be deficient. The trial judge further did not err in reducing the fee request for work expended on a summary judgment motion that was never filed—with the appellate court locating no authority indicating that such unused work had to be compensated. Finally, even though the case was taken on contingency, this alone does not mandate a positive multiplier, with the lower court’s determination that the case was relatively uncomplicated in nature.
Comments