What is a Motion for Attorney's Fees?

In general, “California follows the ‘American rule,’ under which each party to a lawsuit ordinarily must pay his or her own attorney fees.” “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties....” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1021.)

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.040 provides that attorney fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are recoverable as costs if the underlying judgment included an award of attorney fees to the judgment creditor. The Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL) entitles judgment creditors to reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees for enforcement efforts if provided by law. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 685.040.)

Where attorneys fees are permitted by statute as part of an underlying judgment and the statute does not limit the award of fees to those incurred prior to the judgment, post-judgment fees are provided by law. (Berti v. Santa Barbara Beach Properties (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 70, 77.)

The Court’s Decision

The “black letter law” is that the major factors to be considered by a trial court in fixing reasonable attorney fees include the nature of the litigation and its difficulty; the amount involved; the skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation; the attention given; the success of the attorney's efforts and his or her learning, age, and experience in the particular type of work demanded; the intricacies and importance of the litigation; the labor and the necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause; and the time consumed. When the trial court is informed of the extent and nature of the services rendered, it may rely on its own experience and knowledge in determining their reasonable value. Moreover, the exercise of sound discretion by the trial court in the matter of attorney fees includes also judicial evaluation of whether counsel's skill and effort were wisely devoted to the expeditious disposition of the case.

Attorney’s fees are affected by rules covering many types of claims. (e.g., Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c) (“a prevailing defendant on [an anti-SLAPP motion] shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs.”); Code of Civ Proc., § 1717 (attorney’s fees on any action on a contract); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141 (in FEHA matters, “fees recoverable... ordinarily include compensation for all hours reasonably spent....”).)

The requirements vary by rule and must be looked into.

For example in anti-SLAPP matters the trial court is not constrained by the amount sought by the successful moving parties, but is obligated to award “reasonable attorney fees under section 425.16 [that] adequately compensate[] them for the expense of responding to a baseless lawsuit.” (Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 361-362; see also Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785.) The fees awarded should include services for all proceedings, including discovery initiated by the opposing party directly related to the special motion to strike. (Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1248.)

Useful Rulings on Motion for Attorney's Fees

Recent Rulings on Motion for Attorney's Fees

TEHILA KOHANBASH VS FCA US LLC, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHRYSLER GROUP LLC), A DELAWARE CORPORATION,, ET AL.

Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees and costs is granted in the total amount of $18,396.65. It is so ordered. Dated: July , 2020 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Superior Court Judge Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: 19LBUD02706 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Hearing date: July 6, 2020 Defendant Ramon Jose has filed his Motion for Attorneys Fees seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1717 and Rule of Court 3.1702. He seeks $500 pursuant to contract. This case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Plaintiff before there was a trial date set. Defendant claims that he is the “prevailing party” under the contract.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.

Requests for Attorneys’ Fees Given the Court’s ruling, Defendants’ motion for attorneysfees is denied. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied. Plaintiff did not establish Defendants’ special motion to strike was “frivolous” or “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (C.C.P. §425.16(c)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

PATRICIA ANN EMERY ET AL VS JENNY MARCHICK ET AL

The hearing on the motion for attorneysfees is CONTINUED. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief is due 14 days prior to the hearing date. Defendant’s supplemental brief is due 7 days prior to the hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

DIMINGO LOPEZ-LOPEZ ET AL VS BBS NATIONAL INC ET AL

Conclusion: Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneysfees is GRANTED based a hourly rate of $495 for 279 hours in the amount of $138,105.00.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Ruling The motion for attorneysfees and costs is granted. Defendant Vilchez is awarded $3,280 in attorneys’ fees and $295 in costs, or $3,575 in total.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KAI HOU LIANG VS JI LI

On January 17, 2020, the Court granted BCP Inc.’s motion for attorneysfees against Ji Li. On January 28, 2020, the Court signed and filed the following judgment: “1. Plaintiff Kai Hou Liang is awarded punitive damages against Defendant Ji Li in the amount of $200,000.00; 2. A constructive trust is imposed in favor of Plaintiff Kai Hou Liang against Defendant Ji Li on all assets and equity of Hollywood Garden, LLC acquired by Defendant Ji Li (collectively, the ‘Property’).

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JAMES SALAMON ET AL VS HAROLD GREENBERG

A motion for attorneysfees is to be filed within 60 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment. (CRC 3.1702(b)(1) [incorporating by reference the 60-day deadline of 8.104(1)(A)].) This rule applies to “claims for attorney’s fees provided for in a contract” (CRC 3.1702(a)), which is the type of fees claimed here.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

BLF INC. DBA LARRABURE FRAMING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,, ET AL. VS CARPENTERS-CONTRACTORS COOPERATION COMMITTEE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,, ET AL.

And the trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain a motion for attorneysfees even if the order on the SLAPP motion is subject to appeal. (Doe v. Luster (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) Defendants contend that per this court’s January 27, 2020 Order of Dismissal, the court granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Motion while striking Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed the action with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KAI HOU LIANG VS JI LI

On January 17, 2020, the Court granted BCP Inc.’s motion for attorneysfees against Ji Li. On January 28, 2020, the Court signed and filed the following judgment: “1. Plaintiff Kai Hou Liang is awarded punitive damages against Defendant Ji Li in the amount of $200,000.00; 2. A constructive trust is imposed in favor of Plaintiff Kai Hou Liang against Defendant Ji Li on all assets and equity of Hollywood Garden, LLC acquired by Defendant Ji Li (collectively, the ‘Property’).

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: 19LBUD02498 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES Hearing: June 29, 2020 Defendant Terry Murphy has filed his Motion for Attorneys Fees seeking $3,696.88 pursuant to Civil Code § 1717 and § 798.85. This unlawful detainer suit was filed October 21, 2019 based on a 7 day notice to comply. The property involved is a mobilehome and the action is governed by Civil Code § 798 et seq., the Mobilehome Residency Law. Defendant filed two answers, both filed December 17, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

DARK ISLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. VS. CZ MASTER ASSOCIATION

1.Defendant Renewed Motion for Attorneys Fees pursuant to CC §1717 and §5975. Defendant CZ Master Association’s Renewed Motion for Contractual Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part. Defendant submits the Declaration of Marc J. Shrake, Esq. Per the Shrake Declaration, there were 2 firms working on this matter: (1) Cane, Walker & Harkins, LLP - there was one attorney, James C. Harkins, IV. (2) Freeman Mathis & Gary - there were 2 partners and 3 associates with various billing rates. Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

Conclusion The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for attorneysfees in the amount of $201,880.00.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL. VS NEW FLYER OF AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests judicial notice of (1) the final ruling on petition for writ of mandate in BC621090 on October 12, 2017; and (2) the ruling on intervenor Jobs to Move America’s motion for attorneysfees on March 26, 2018. These requests are GRANTED per Evidence Code § 452(d) (court records). Analysis First Cause of Action: Presentation of False Claims of Compliance with U.S.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STEVEN EASTRIDGE ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Plaintiffs Steven Eastridge (“Eastridge”) and Arnold Asumbrado (“Asumbrado”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move for an order enforcing the Court’s February 4, 2020 order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneysfees and costs in the amount of $53,932.15. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

Conclusion The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for attorneysfees in the amount of $201,880.00 against Plaintiff Krista Lynn Taylor.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

FARHAD BEROUKHIM ET AL VS MOTORCARS OF VAN NUYS ET AL

Conclusion: Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneysfees and costs is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded $72,816.75 in attorneys’ fees and $3,166.85 in costs, for a total amount of $75,983.60.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

JACOB MACIAS VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEES [CCP §1033.5(c)(5), Civil Code § 1794] Date: 6/26/20 (2:00 PM) Case: Jacob Macias v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (19GDCV00003) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Jacob Macias’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANGELINA CASTELLANOS VS SUBARU OF AMERICA INC

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys fees, seeking an order pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $27,881.75 and costs in the amount of $1,575.25. On March 18, 2020, Defendant submitted an opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

GABRIEL RAMIREZ ET AL VS ASUNCION GARCIA ET AL

The motion for attorneysfees is denied. Ruling The motion for summary judgment is denied. The motion to tax Paramount’s costs is granted in part. Paramount’s costs are taxed $1,628.55. Paramount is awarded $9,559.01 in costs. The motion to tax Willdan’s costs is granted in part. Willdan’s costs are taxed $1,261.16. Willdan is awarded $689.84 in costs. Willdan’s motion for attorneysfees is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAVIER F. CARRANZA, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

ANALYSIS Motion For AttorneysFees, Costs and Expenses The parties settled this lawsuit when Defendants FCA US LLC and B&W Automotive, Inc., dba Bravo Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Alhambra accepted Plaintiff’s November 9, 2019 CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise for $83,033.94. Plaintiff seeks to recover $20,947.50, plus a 0.5 lodestar enhancement of $10,473.75, for a total of $31,421.25 in attorney’s fees, and $1,038.30 in costs and expenses.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TEDRA SIMONE WHITAKER VS SPECTRUM REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Opposition to Motion for AttorneysFees p.2: 26-27.) However, Plaintiff argues if it were not for the res judicata and collateral issue, Plaintiff’s allegations possessed merit. (Opposition to Motion for AttorneysFees p.3: 12.) Plaintiff, an African American woman, applied to become a tenant of the Property, but Spectrum denied her application without performing a credit check. (Opposition to Motion for AttorneysFees p.3: 14-19; p. 4: 1.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

TREVOR KENNEDY, ET AL. V. CURBSTAND, INC.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Final Approval; Attorney Fees and Costs Motion for final approval of class action settlement and class certification Motion for attorneysfees and costs ATTORNEYS Nicole K.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

That said, the Court agrees with Defendants that the motion for attorneys' fees is untimely. California Rule of Court 3.1702 provides that a notice of motion "to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court ... must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case[.]" (CRC 3.1702(b)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SARAH MARKS V. UNIVERSAL PROPULSION COMPANY

Motion for AttorneysFees and Costs Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement TENTATIVE RULING The unopposed motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement is GRANTED. The Court finds that the Gross Settlement Amount is $1,083,344.29. The Court awards attorneys’ fees of one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, $361,114.76 and litigation expenses of $30,000. The Court awards the Plaintiff Sarah Marks an enhancement of $10,000 from the settlement as a Class Representative Service Payment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 91     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.