Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A.
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 495
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Calvin and Tracy Mountjoy sued defendants (Bank of America et al.) after a nonjudicial foreclosure and related unlawful detainer actions; the case settled for $395,000 with attorneys' fees to be determined by motion.
- Mountjoys moved for attorney fees: lodestar $308,425 for 760.70 hours (Henderson $450/hr; Nygren $350/$200), initially requesting a multiplier (later withdrawn).
- Defendant challenged the fee request as excessive, vague, block-billed, duplicative, and including nonattorney or unperformed work; defense counsel’s billed ~224 hours was submitted as a comparative check.
- Trial court found "well over 70%" of Mountjoys' billing entries flawed and applied a 70% across-the-board reduction to hours (reducing to 228.21 hours) and used a $260 blended rate, awarding $59,334.60.
- Mountjoys appealed, arguing the reduction and the blended rate were improper; the Court of Appeal affirmed most criticisms but held the 70% across-the-board hours cut was arbitrary and abused discretion, and remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of hourly rate | Henderson: $450 (should exceed $260) given experience/trial record | $260 is reasonable (local rates; defense counsel rate) | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion in applying $260; Mountjoys failed to rebut multiplicity of factors supporting rate choice |
| Excessive / vague / block billing entries | Mountjoys: entries are justified; drafting and motion work legitimately time-consuming | Bank: entries vague, block-billed, duplicative, include nonattorney/unperformed tasks | Court: many specific reductions justified (vagueness, excess, duplicative tasks), but entries were not true block billing; some specific reductions were erroneous |
| Use of defense counsel hours as control | Mountjoys: trial court improperly relied on defense billing as dominant factor | Bank: defense hours may serve as useful cross-check | Court: trial court used defense hours only as a cross-check after finding flaws in plaintiff entries; no misuse of defense records as sole basis |
| Across-the-board 70% reduction in hours | Mountjoys: reduction arbitrary; trial court failed to connect flawed entries to % of hours reduced | Bank: large proportion of entries flawed justifies heavy reduction | Court: 70% cut was arbitrary because court equated % of flawed entries with % of hours; remanded to recalculate hours more precisely |
Key Cases Cited
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (lodestar as starting point; court may adjust for novelty, skill, contingency)
- Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010) (goal of determining a reasonable attorney fee via lodestar)
- Margolin v. Regional Planning Com., 134 Cal.App.3d 999 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (factors relevant to reasonable hourly rate)
- Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court may reduce excessive fee requests; counsel must prune noncompensable entries)
- Donahue v. Donahue, 182 Cal.App.4th 259 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (comparing each side’s litigation costs may be a useful fee check)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (presumption that trial court considered matters in record; appellate error must be shown)
- Chavez v. Netflix, 162 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (degree of success as a factor in adjusting lodestar)
- Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy, 215 Cal.App.4th 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (definition of block billing)