191 Cal. App. 4th 65
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- The City obtained a judgment under red light abatement and the unfair competition laws and sought attorney fees under Civil Code section 3496, subdivision (b).
- The City originally requested $274,857.25 using a lodestar calculation with $325 hourly rate.
- Patels opposed, contending fees were unreasonable and that only actual costs should be awarded.
- The trial court concluded the City was entitled to fees but limited them to actual costs, using a cost-plus method based on a purported hourly rate of $177.34.
- The court acknowledged the $325 lodestar rate could be reasonable if a market approach prevailed but did not apply it at that time.
- Appellants appealed; the appeal concerning the fee calculation is decided in favor of using the lodestar, and A124452 is dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fee award should be calculated by the lodestar method rather than cost-plus. | City | Patels | Lodestar required; cost-plus error |
| Whether appeal A124452 is moot due to reversal on the fee method issue. | City and Patels | City and Patels | Appeal A124452 moot |
Key Cases Cited
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (lodestar preferred; cost-plus may be exceptional)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (lodestar presumed for statutory fees unless statute says otherwise)
- Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, 61 Cal.App.4th 629 (Cal. App. 1998) (lodestar applies beyond CCP 1021.5)
- Meister v. Regents of University of California, 67 Cal.App.4th 437 (Cal. App. 1998) (lodestar applicable to statutory fees)
- City of Oakland v. McCullough, 46 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 1996) (overhead costs and market value considerations discussed; dicta about cost-plus)