Decision Provides Insights Into Judicial Resolution Of Contested Fee And Costs Issues.
Because there has not been a lot of fee or costs decisions in the last couple of weeks, we report on a Los Angeles County Superior Court (Norwalk) final ruling on attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in WnG Construction JV, Inc. v. AAA Solar Electric, Inc., et al., L.A. Superior Court Case No. VC065473 [Judge Porras].
Plaintiff WnG won a construction dispute with a contractual fees clause against the defense, winning compensatory damages of about $3.116 million (inclusive of prejudgment interest) despite an offset and plaintiff not winning all that it wanted. However, given that plaintiff did gain much of what it wanted, plaintiff was the prevailing party under the fees clause. Plaintiff then moved for fees and costs, with various law firms submitting fee requests totaling around $2.1 million and with costs claimed of over $205,000.
After some reductions on both counts, Judge Porras awarded fees of about $1.309 million and costs of around $82,000.
Here are some interesting highlights to show his thinking on awarding reasonable fees and costs:
-
-
- An attorney disqualified based on ethical obligation violations is not entitled to any fees, an almost $223,000 reduction;
- A law firm requesting over $653,000 in fees did not get them because they were involved in a discovery dispute which showed plaintiff deliberately spoliated evidence;
- The principal law firm did get a majority of its requested fees, although J.D. law clerk/non-J.D. law clerk/secretarial work was not allowed and the main attorney charging $500 per hour for a breach of contract case was reasonable (but not an enhanced $750 hourly rate based on the Laffey Matrix, which the lower court found did not reflect L.A. County rates);
- A law firm billing for potential post-trial/appellate consultation was not entitled to fees until those events materialized into situations allowing for fee recovery;
- Although a CCP § 998 offer was rejected and could have potentially resulted in expert fee recoupment (although it is not clear from the record), the failure to identify pre-offer versus post-offer costs did not allow for an award of expert fees without a clearer allocation;
- Charges for additional or duplicate copies of court reporter transcripts resulted in a reduction of expenses for these items.
-
With that said, we give a “shout out” to Thomas F. Nowland, whose law firm and whose principal work led to him receiving a substantial portion of his fees on behalf of his client. We thank him for providing the fee and costs ruling in this case so it could be shared with you.
Comments