No, The Actual, Roughly $105,800 Fee Award Out Of A Requested $330.363.75, Inclusive Of A 1.5 Multiplier, Was Affirmed—No More Awarded.
In a recent post, we blogged on the affirmance of a $105,800 fee award (roughly) to challengers in a private attorney general award, and they got there barely under an abuse of discretion standard. Interestingly, the challengers argued that their fee request of $330,382.75 (inclusive of a 1.5 positive multiplier) should have been granted by the lower court rather than the lower award. The Fifth District disagreed in Westlands Water Dist. v. North Coast Rivers Alliance, Case No. F085567 (5th Dist. Aug. 5, 2024) (unpublished).
The lower and appellate courts’ reasoning in this matter is a fee auditor affirmation on why reductions should be done for these activities: the hourly rates were excessive (Northern California versus Central California rates); there was no showing that Bay Area counsel representation had to be obtained on a case of this nature because no evidence was provided to show why local counsel could not be obtained; fee applicants’ expert witness only offered generalized opinions, not geared to the specifics of the case; and excessive time on many tasks, especially processing Case Management Statements, drafting stock Answers to a Complaint, appellate work involving “cutting and pasting” with not much more originality, and more mundane tasks. The trial court reductions for specific tasks were no abuse of discretion based on its ruling and the appellate record, where reductions were considered.
Comments