Faton v. Ahmedo CA4/1
187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Sina Faton (petitioner) obtained a one-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Bashar Ahmedo after a de novo evidentiary hearing; Ahmedo had filed reconsideration and later obtained counsel.
- Faton did not check the attorney-fees box on the initial DV-100 form; the TRO form indicated fees "may be ordered after a noticed hearing."
- After the Second DVRO was entered (December 31, 2013), Faton filed a post-judgment motion under Family Code § 6344 seeking $12,655 in attorney fees; the motion was noticed and heard March 24, 2014.
- The parties stipulated that Ahmedo had ability to pay and limited early exchange of income declarations; Faton detailed time, rates, and tasks performed by three attorneys.
- Ahmedo opposed on procedural and substantive grounds: (1) fee request was untimely/not made on the standard DVRO form before the evidentiary hearing, (2) § 6344 and Judicial Council forms preclude post-judgment fee motions, and (3) the requested amount was excessive.
- The trial court found notice and a hearing satisfied § 6344 and due process, reduced the requested fee to $5,000, and ordered Ahmedo to pay. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Faton's Argument | Ahmedo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to request fees on the DV-100 before the merits hearing forfeits fee recovery | Fee awards under § 6344 are incidental to prevailing-party status and may be sought after judgment | Failure to request fees on the standard form before the hearing forfeits the right to fees | No forfeiture; statutory prevailing-party fees may be awarded after judgment |
| Whether § 6344 or the Judicial Council forms require pre-hearing fee notice on the form | § 6344 requires only notice and a hearing; form is not exclusive vehicle | Statutory scheme and forms indicate legislative intent that fees be requested via the DVRO form before hearing | Court has authority to award fees post-hearing where notice and a hearing are provided |
| Whether post-judgment fee motions permit excessive financial discovery beyond exchange of FL-150 | Court can manage discovery; forms don’t bar additional discovery where appropriate | Allowing post-judgment motions invites abusive/excessive financial discovery and undermines streamlined DVRO process | No bar on limited additional discovery; concerns are for judicial management, not a jurisdictional prohibition |
| Whether the $5,000 award was supported by substantial evidence | Faton submitted detailed billing; trial court reduced requested amount and exercised discretion | Requested $12,655 was excessive given matter’s complexity and use of multiple attorneys | Affirmed: $5,000 was within trial court’s discretion and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Snatchko v. Westfield LLC, 187 Cal.App.4th 469 (prevailing-party statutory fees may be awarded after judgment)
- Chinn v. KMR Property Management, 166 Cal.App.4th 175 (due process satisfied by notice and hearing on attorney fees even if not included in original pleading)
- Mabee v. Nurseryland Garden Centers, Inc., 88 Cal.App.3d 420 (distinguishing fees incidental to cause of action from special-damages fees that must be pleaded at trial)
- In re Marriage of Lippel, 51 Cal.3d 1160 (notice requirements and due process in family-law forms/context)
- Arthur Andersen v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 1481 (parties are deemed to have constructive notice of existing laws)
- Loeffler v. Medina, 174 Cal.App.4th 1495 (standard of review for amount of fee award; trial court’s discretion respected)