Allocation: Prevailing Party On Two Previous Appeals Won More Fees Because The Opposing Parties Did Not Show Why Further Fees Were Unwarranted

Because Complaint And Cross-Complaint Had Common Core Facts/Issues Which Were Inextricably Intertwined, No Apportionment Was Required—Discretionary, Only. Etched stone at the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse, Sacramento, California.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. October 2009. Library of Congress.

                In Direct Action Everywhere San Francisco Bay Area v. Hsiung, Case No. A169536 (1^st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 16, 2025) (unpublished), the appellate court was dealing with a third appeal in a case where it had affirmed previous fee and costs awards to a prevailing party against two unsuccessful litigants.  The lower court granted a total of $153,976.20 against the losing litigants, broken down based on the appellate fee requests of the prevailing party—the fee request was granted in full.  None of the arguments by the unsuccessful litigants won on appeal.  One litigant raised jurisdictional arguments, but those had been resolved adversely in the prior appeals.  The other litigant argued there needed to be an apportionment of fees, but that was a discretionary call by the lower court (which did not so allocate) after determining that the complaint and cross-complaint involved a common core of facts and had issues which were inextricably intertwined.  (Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan, 234 Cal.App.4^th 608, 628 (2015).)