In Re TOBACCO CASES I
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Reynolds challenges trial court orders on remand awarding the People $2,943,920.63 in contractual attorney fees under the Consent Decree and MSA.
- Civil Code section 1717 governs attorney fees where a contract provides, with the prevailing party defined as one who recovered greater relief on the contract.
- The People sought to enforce the Decree against Reynolds for using cartoons in Farm Rocks advertising and for adjacency to Rolling Stone editorial cartoons.
- The trial court found the People prevailed under 1717 and awarded Bay Area market-rate fees; Reynolds appeals arguing lack of greater relief, incorrect rates, and insufficient reduction for partial success.
- On remand, the court determined the People achieved their main objective (stopping Farm Rocks in CA) and designated them prevailing; it awarded fees based on Bay Area rates using Oakland attorneys.
- This court affirms, holding the People prevailed, Bay Area rates are appropriate where practicable, and a voluntary partial-fee reduction adequately addresses partial success.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party under 1717 | Reynolds | Reynolds | People prevailed on contract relief |
| Appropriate lodestar rate (Bay Area vs. local) | People | Reynolds | Bay Area rates permissible; not required to use San Diego local rates |
| Adjustment for partial success | People | Reynolds | 15% voluntary reduction sufficient; no further apportionment required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tobacco Cases I, 186 Cal.App.4th 42 (2010) (discusses 1717 applicability and prevailing party analysis)
- In re Tobacco Cases I, 193 Cal.App.4th 1591 (2011) (remand decisions; prevailing party and fee rate guidance)
- Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995) (standard for prevailing party relief under 1717)
- De La Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal.App.4th 1287 (2011) (unlawful detainer analogue for prevailing party under 1717)
- Acree v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 92 Cal.App.4th 385 (2001) (fee apportionment when contract-based claims predominate)
- Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 132 Cal.App.4th 399 (2005) (exception to local-rate requirement for impracticable local counsel)
- El Escorial Owners' Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1337 (2007) (apportionment of fees when intertwined issues allowed)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (two-step analysis for fee awards in limited success cases)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) (broad discretion in attorney-fee awards; standards of review)