Litigation Management & Attorney Fee Analysis Blog : Attorney Fee Analysis & Litigation Management Lawyer : Barger & Wolen Law Firm : Litigation Management, Legal Fees, Billing Guidelines

An environmental group and a band of Native Americans successfully challenged various aspects of a solid waste facility landfill project in San Diego County.  The Fourth Appellate District held that the claimants were entitled to $239,620 in attorneys' fees under the Private Attorney General Doctrine, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

The City of Oceanside, RiverWatch and the Pala Band of Mission Indians filed petitions in mandate against the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health ("DEH") contending the DEH violated, among other statutes, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").  

1. First, the DEH argued that Claimants experienced limited success since the petition was denied in part and granted in part by the trial court, and thus RiverWatch and Pala Band were not prevailing parties under the statute.  But the court disagreed, noting that RiverWatch and Pala Band prevailed on three significant issues.
    
2. DEH also argued Claimants failed to show that the cost of their victory was "out of proportion to [their] individual stake in the matter," one of the requirements for a fee award under section 1021.5.  DEH claimed the litigation costs did not outweigh Claimant's personal interests and they, therefore, failed to advance a significant public interest.  The court disagreed, however, finding evidence in the record that Pala Band's actions protected the interests of all Luiseno people by protecting sacred sites and protecting their ability to engage in their religion.  In fact, the court held the burden shifted to the DEH and that they failed to prove the victory involved only Claimant's individual stake in the matter.
    
3. Finally, DEH argued Claimants failed to show "the ligitation has had a beneficial impact on the public as a whole," another requirement before a claimant is entitled to its section 1021.5 fees.  But again, the court found the action addressed traffic impacts from the project, involved the water supply and generally ensured that environmental impacts from the project were adequately mitigated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By David McMahon and Heather Lee

In Donahue v. Donahue, 182 Cal.App.4th 259 (Feb. 24, 2010), a California Court of Appeal recently reversed the trial court’s award of fees where simultaneous representation by multiple firms created unnecessary and duplicative fees.

The trial court charged a trust with approximately $5 million in past and ongoing attorneys fees incurred on behalf of a former trustee in defending against the beneficiary’s allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest. Eight attorneys from three major law firms comprised the former trustee’s legal team, with four to five of those attorneys simultaneously appearing at the 14-day trial. 

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reversed the award and remanded, noting,

[u]nderstandably, these law firms brought with them their own supervising, support and administrative infrastructure, but simultaneous representation by multiple law firms posed substantial risks of task padding, over-conferencing, attorney stacking (multiple attendance by attorneys at the same functions), and excessive research.” Id.at 272.

The Donahue Court rejected the trustee’s “bet the farm” rationale for his litigation decision to simultaneously retain a legal team of seven to eight lawyers with primary activity and involvement from three major law firms, and his argument that he retained attorneys at two of those law firms to preserve “institutional memory.” Id. at 272-73.

Finding that this rationale resulted in overstaffing and duplication, the Court noted,

just as there can be too many cooks in a kitchen, there can be too many lawyers on a case.” Id. at 272 (quoting Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 8 F.Supp.2d 91, 101 (D. Mass. 1998)). 

Similarly unavailing was the trustee’s argument that the additional attorneys served as “reserves” to cross examine witnesses at trial. Id.at 273.

In fact, the Court found that such a “spare-no-expense strategy” called for close scrutiny on questions of reasonableness, proportionality and trust benefit. Id. at 273. 

The Court pointed out that reasonableness depended not simply upon what fees were reasonably incurred in representing the defendant, but upon whether such fees were reasonably and prudently incurred for the trust. Id.at 274 (emphasis added). It aptly questioned,

Did [the respondent] demand a Rolls Royce defense when a prudent trustee could have arrived at the same destination in a Buick, Chrysler or Taurus?” Id.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel, 2010 DJDAR 11005 (2010), the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal ruled that in an action brought pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 (the “UCL”), the trial court improperly granted a fee award. The appellate court reversed the award of attorney fees by the lower court, holding that the UCL does not in and of itself authorize the award of attorney fees.

The City of Santa Monica (“City”) filed a lawsuit against a landlord, who owned and leased units in the City. The complaint alleged that the landlord sexually harassed a tenant, improperly entered tenants’ units without notice and rented an uninhabitable space to a tenant as living quarters. The plaintiff asserted one cause of action under § 17200. Each of the alleged violations was premised on acts not in compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”). The trial court ruled against the landlord, imposed a $7,500 civil penalty, enjoined him from contact with tenants, and ordered him to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees. On appeal, the landlord argued that the UCL did not support an attorney fee award.

The court of appeal agreed with the landlord and reversed the fee award. 

The court reiterated the American rule, that in the absence of an express agreement or statute, each party involved in litigation must pay its own attorney fees. The court also noted that the UCL does not, by itself, authorize a court to award attorney fees. 

Plaintiff argued that attorney fees are recoverable when a borrowed statute, upon which a UCL claim is based, allows such recovery. Because the action was based on the municipal code, which provides that persons who violate the code are liable for attorney fees, the plaintiff argued that the fee award was proper. The court disagreed, noting that although the UCL borrows violations from other laws by making them actionable, there is no authority supporting the conclusion that the UCL borrows remedies from other statutes. 

The action was solely brought under the UCL, thus the fee award could not stand.

Please visit Barger & Wolen's Insurance Litigation & Regulatory Law Blog for more UCL case updates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

by David J. McMahon and Tino X. Do

In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., D054369 (July 15, 2010), the Fourth Appellate District upheld the trial court’s judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff class representative under the Automobile Sale Finance Act (“ASFA”), and denied costs to defendant in its claim under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998.

Nelson involved a class action against the Pearson Ford car dealership for alleged violations of the ASFA, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) arising from a backdated car sale contract that resulted in a car buyer paying interest for a time period when no contract existed, and for erroneously adding insurance premium to the sales price of the car which resulted in additional sales tax and financing charges. 

Two separate classes were certified by the trial court: the backdating class and the insurance class. 

Following a bench trial, the trial court found Pearson Ford liable under the ASFA to only the insurance class, liable to both classes under the UCL, and not liable to either class under the CLRA. The trial court granted certain remedies under the ASFA and the UCL, and awarded Nelson his attorney fees and costs under the ASFA. Both parties appealed. 

The appellate court reversed the trial court as to the portion of the judgment finding Pearson Ford not liable to the backdating class under the ASFA and the CLRA. The court also found that the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the ASFA and the UCL. The court upheld the trial court’s ruling on the award of attorney fees and costs.

Attorney fees in this matter were not awarded under the UCL, which does not permit this type of remedy, but under the AFSA, a statute that specifically grants the recovery of attorney fees to the prevailing party. 

The appellate court noted that Pearson Ford did not challenge the trial court’s conclusion that Nelson was the prevailing party for both classes under the ASFA (Civ. Code section 2983.4), or dispute the awarded amount. Instead, Pearson Ford argued that the trial court should have taken into consideration the fact that it had made a Section 998 offer of $500,000 before trial, and that Nelson failed to obtain a more favorable judgment at trial. 

The appellate court, while noting that a valid settlement offer can be made under Section 998 in a certified class action, agreed with the trial court that the Section 998 offer at issue was invalid because it was a lump-sum offer to two classes. The court stated that it would be impossible to determine whether either class received a less favorable result at trial than it would have received under the offer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Soria v. Soria, 2010 DJDAR 8945 (2010), the Fourth Appellate District decided a case which demonstrates the limitations of Probate Code Section 17211(b). Probate Code Section 17211(b) permits a probate court to award attorney fees to the beneficiary of a trust who contests the trustees’ accounting, if the trustee opposes the contest without reasonable cause and in bad faith.

In 1993, Richard Soria Sr. (Father) and Irene Sarinana (Mother) entered into a contract with Father’s parents, Richard and Lynda Soria (Grandparents). The contract required the Grandparents to convey a deed to a parcel of real property to Richard and Irene Soria. However, the agreement contained a provision that if Richard and Irene Soria were to ever divorce; the property would immediately revert to Father and the couple’s children (Grandchildren).

The Grandparents allegedly did not comply with the terms of the agreement. In 2005, the Grandchildren filed suit against Grandparents in an effort to compel conveyance of the deed. The lawsuit alleged that the conditional contract to convey the deed to the property, constituted a trust agreement. The suit further alleged that the Grandparents were the trustees, and Mother, Father and Grandchildren were the beneficiaries of the contract. The proceedings at the trial level were complex. After vigorous motion practices a judgment was entered against the Grandparents finding that the agreement was an express trust, with Grandparents in breach of its terms for failing to turn over the property deed.

The judgment required the Grandparents to convey the property to the Grandchildren on certain payment terms. Subsequently, the trial court granted Grandchildren’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to Probate Code Section 17211(b), and Grandparents appealed that ruling.

The court of appeal reversed the judgment below.

The court stated that Section 17211(b) provides that if a beneficiary contests an accounting performed by the trustee, and the court determines that the trustee’s opposition to the proceeding was without reasonable cause and in bad faith, the court has authority to award costs, including reasonable attorney fees.

The court ruled that Section 17211(b) deals with the situation where a beneficiary’s contests a trustee’s accounting. Where that happens, the claim is governed by the probate court. Here, the Grandchildren did not contest a trustee’s accounting in probate court. The Grandchildren filed a civil complaint requesting injunctive relief and declaration that the agreement was in fact a trust. Therefore, the court concluded, Grandchildren were not entitled to attorney fees under Section 17211(b).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Astrue v. Ratliff, 2010 DJDAR 8875 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that attorney fees awards are properly payable to the litigant, not to her attorney. For this reason, a fee award is subject to an offset where the litigant owed the government a preexisting debt.

Ruby Ree (“Ree”) successfully sued the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for benefits. Her attorney was Catherine Ratliff (“Ratliff”). Ree filed a successful motion for attorney fees which was not opposed by the government. Before the government reimbursed Plaintiff for the fee award, it discovered Ree owed the United States a debt that predated the award. The government sought an administrative offset against the award. Counsel for the prevailing party, Ms. Ratliff, intervened challenging the offset on the grounds that the fee award belonged to her, as a litigant’s attorney, and thus could not satisfy the litigant’s debts. The district court disagreed, but the appeals court agreed with Ratliff. The issue was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The high court reversed and remanded the decision of the court of appeal. 

The court specifically stated its longstanding view of the term “prevailing party.”  The court noted that in attorney fees statutes that term refers to the “prevailing litigant.” Statutes that mean to distinguish the attorney from the litigant in fees cases do so explicitly. The court also stated that the word “award” in the litigation context means giving or assigning by judicial decree. Here, the Equal Access to Justice Act provides for the court to “award” the “prevailing party” attorney fees. As such, an attorney fees award is payable to the litigant rather than to the attorney. Because the award is properly payable to the litigant it is subject to an offset for the preexisting debt.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Orange Blossom Limited Partnership v. Southern California Sunbelt Developers Inc. 2010 DJDAR 8623, Ninth Circuit (2010), the Ninth Circuit concluded that a bankruptcy court properly awarded costs, attorney’s fees and punitive damages against thirteen creditors that initiated an improper involuntary bankruptcy petition under 11 U.S.C. § 303 (i).

The creditors filed involuntary bankruptcy petitions against IBT International Inc. (“IBT”) and Southern California Sunbelt Developers Inc. (“SCSD”) under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Two individuals, Donald Grammer and David Tedder, controlled the entities that filed the petitions. 

The bankruptcy court dismissed the petitions against SCSD after finding that the petitioners’ claims were the subject of a bona fide dispute. 11 U.S.C. §303(b). The court subsequently dismissed the involuntary petition against IBT on a motion by the petitioning creditors. 

SCSD and IBT filed motions for costs, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages against the petitioning creditors under § 303 (i). They also sought sanctions against the individuals who controlled the creditors under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and the court’s inherent power.

The court awarded IBT and SCSD costs, attorney fees and punitive damages under §303(i) of the Bankruptcy Code, and issued sanctions against Grammer and Tedder who then appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part noting that §303(i) is a fee-shifting provision.

The court stated that the bankruptcy court may grant a debtor reasonable attorney fees when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is dismissed. The bankruptcy court awarded SCSD and IBT costs and fees incurred during the involuntary bankruptcy petition as well as those incurred while litigating claims for damages under §303(i). The Ninth Circuit concluded the award was appropriate, since a fee award can encompass all aspects of a §303 action, including claims for damages. 

The Ninth Circuit reversed on one issue noting that the bankruptcy court did not have authority to award costs against Grammer and Tedder for fees incurred by SCSD and IBT’s motions for sanctions. 

Creditors who are considering initiating an involuntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code should study this decision carefully.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 DJDAR 8612 (9^th Circuit 2010) the court decided whether, and to what extent the publisher of, a monthly prison news magazine may recover attorneys’ fees from the State of California for monitoring the State’s compliance with a prior settlement agreement.

The publisher Prison Legal News (“Legal News”) settled claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) relating to First and Fourth Amendment claims relating to dissemination of the magazine and other literature in correctional facilities. After entering into negotiations, the parties resolved the dispute and CDCR agreed to pay Legal News’ attorney fees for the period up until the agreement was executed by the parties. Legal News also reserved the right to pursue claims for attorney fees for work performed after signing the agreement. 

Subsequent to execution of the settlement agreement, Legal News filed a complaint against CDCR under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to the procedures set out in the settlement agreement. The parties notified the district court of the settlement, sought dismissal without prejudice, and stipulated that Legal News was entitled to $320,000 in attorney fees for work done through December 11, 2006. The court granted dismissal and confirmed the attorney fee award. In October of 2007, Legal News moved for a further fee award in the sum of $137,672.79. The district court substantially granted that motion. The court awarded Legal News $137,502 in attorney fees for the period between September 1, 2007, and October 15, 2008. 

Subsequently, Legal News brought a second motion for fees in the sum of $143,322.96. The CDCR argued that Legal News was not entitled to additional fees for work performed in simply monitoring compliance with the settlement agreement.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part noting that § 1988 provides that in actions brought under § 1983, courts may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees. A plaintiff who obtains a legally enforceable settlement agreement qualifies as a prevailing party. The court stated that § 1988 authorizes attorney fees awards for monitoring compliance with the parties’ settlement agreement. This is true even where that monitoring does not lead to a judgment or order.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Legal News was entitled to recover attorney fees for monitoring the CDCR’s compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Lucky United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee, 2010 DJDAR 8085 (2010), the First District Court of Appeal decided a unique issue dealing with the recovery of attorney fees incurred in enforcing a judgment.

The procedural history of the case is convoluted. In 2006, the Plaintiff sued Lucky United Properties Investments Inc. (“Lucky”) for malicious prosecution. Lucky cross‑complained for malicious prosecution against the Plaintiff and his attorney, Albert Lee (hereinafter “Lee”). The trial court granted anti‑SLAPP motions in connection with both of the lawsuits.

Thereafter, the court awarded the attorney, Lee, $26,407.50 in fees and costs as the prevailing party on his anti‑SLAPP motion. Lucky failed to pay the attorney in a timely manner, and Lee filed a cost memorandum for $424 in enforcement costs. Lucky then sent the attorney $26,820, which the attorney claimed was insufficient. Lee then sought attorney fees and costs in relation to Lucky’s appeal from the order granting Lee’s anti‑SLAPP motion. Lee claimed $587 in costs from the appeal. The trial court awarded the attorney $33,830 for attorney fees and costs. The attorney then requested attorney fees incurred to enforce the earlier order awarding attorney fees and costs. The trial court denied the request on the ground that Lucky had fully paid the amounts due before the motion was brought.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the decision of the lower court, noting that a motion for attorney fees incurred in enforcing a judgment must be filed before a judgment is satisfied. Here, Lucky did not move to tax the $424 in costs claimed by the attorney. Thus, those costs were incorporated into the judgment and the $26,820 mailed to the attorney. The court noted that the amount did not satisfy the judgment. The court also noted that Lucky did not pay the original judgment in full despite the payment of $33,830. Thus, when the attorney filed the motion for attorney fees, Lucky had not fully satisfied the judgment. On that basis, the court of appeal concluded that the trial court erred in denying the attorney’s request for attorney fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link