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 Resources for Motion for Attorney's Fees

Recent Rulings on Motion for Attorney's Fees

101-125 of 2582 results

QORUM INC VS CONNECTED LIVING INC

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS by defendants Kristi Short and Jason Short is GRANTED. Objections are overruled. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3426.4 if a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. Application of section 3426.4 raises three questions: Is the defendant the prevailing party? Was the claim made in bad faith? And what is a reasonable fee? (Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PUNCHES VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal on Settled Case Plaintiff Dennis Punches’ Motion for AttorneysFees, Paralegal Fees, and Costs is granted. Plaintiff is awarded $45,393.25 in attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

SEANY RENFROW V. LARRY BUTTLER, ET AL.

Motion for AttorneysFees On 12/13/19, Galaxy filed this motion for attorneysfees. The hearing on the motion was originally scheduled for 6/02/20, but was continued due to the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. The Court’s 4/10/20 continuance order instructs the parties to calculate the briefing schedule per the original (6/02/20) hearing date. Plaintiff timely filed opposition to the motion on 5/19/20. Defendant did not file timely reply papers in connection with the 6/02/20 hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

MICHAEL SEAN WRIGHT VS NEAL KELLEY, ET AL.

Neal Kelley, Respondent Supervisor Andrew Do, Real Party in Interest Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: October 29, 2020 30-2019-01118634 Tentative Decision on Motion for AttorneysFees Pursuant to CCP Section 1021.5: DENIED Tentative Decision on Special Motion to Strike: Continued Real Party in Interest Supervisor Andrew Do (“Real Party”) moves to strike the petition for writ of mandate filed by Petitioner Michael Sean Wright (“Petitioner”) pursuant to CCP section 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ALONIZ VS FCA US LLC

As plaintiff has failed to comply with the Code, the motion for attorneys' fees and costs is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHN DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Regents of the University of California (UCLA), Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: October 29, 2020 BS174814 Tentative Decision on Motion for AttorneysFees: DENIED Petitioner John Doe (“Petitioner” or “Doe”) moves for an award of attorney’s fees against Respondent Regents of the University of California (UCLA) (“Respondent”) pursuant to CCP section 1021.5. Petitioner seeks an award of $70,621.50 in fees and a multiplier of 2.00, for a total of $141,243.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHAD PADILLA VS LIMITLESS TRADING CO., LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.

On September 18, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion for attorneysfees. On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On October 21, 2020, Defendants filed a reply. Defendants failed to provide the supporting declaration for fees. Both parties refer to the DeClerq declaration, but it was not submitted with the motion. Defendants are to submit the DeClerq declaration as soon as possible. Accordingly, the motion is continued to November 3, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSN ET AL VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF MOTO

.: BC553552 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEES Date: October 28, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneysfees scheduled for 10/28/2020 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 11/04/2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 28th day of October 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

The Court denies the motion for attorneysfees on this ground. The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning a new offer to compromise, and to be clear concerning whether or not they intend to include attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or interest. The Court notes that it is even more clear that the contractor defendants did not have a meeting of the minds with MWL.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

CACIQUE INC VS PROCTOR INDUSTRIAL INVESTORS LLC

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Cacique, Inc.’s motion for attorneysfees is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s motion to strike costs is GRANTED. DISCUSSION: Motions for Attorney’s Fees Both Defendant/Cross-Complainant Proctor Industrial Investors, LLC (“Proctor”) and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Cacique, Inc. (“Cacique”) move for attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in this action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY VS RICARDO LARA

Conclusion The motion for attorneysfees is granted in the amount of $319,003.85.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RANCH AT THE FALLS LLC VS KEITH O'NEAL ET AL

F-47 Date: 10/26/20 Case #PC055790 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEES AND COSTS Motion filed on 2/14/20. MOVING PARTY: Defendant Indian Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Ranch at the Falls LLC and April Hart NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED: An order awarding Defendant Indian Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. attorneys’ fees in the amount of $917,280.60 jointly and severally against Plaintiffs Ranch at the Falls LLC and April Hart.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

UNITED GRAND CORPORATION VS MALIBU HILLBILLIES LLC ET AL

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply and rules as follows Judicial Notice: Counsel Staub requests judicial notice of the Sanctions Order, Contempt Conviction, Bench Warrant, 6/14/18 Order on Motion for AttorneysFees, 7/16/19 Order Granting Special Prosecutor’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Response to Order to Show Cause in 19SMCV00158 (Sanai’s fee dispute), and 9/15/20 Minute Order in 19SMCV00158.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

MELISSA C. CLARK VS. CHERYL REDMOND

The court declared Defendant to be the prevailing party and directed her to file a motion for attorneysfees and a memorandum of costs. On 1/14/20, Defendant served Plaintiff with Notice of Entry of Judgment. On 1/28/20, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs. On 3/9/20, Defendant filed and served the instant motion for attorneysfees pursuant to CC 1717.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

POONSOOK BRAINANGKUL VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.

The judgment states, “Plaintiff may bring a motion for attorneysfees, and Defendants may oppose the motion for attorneysfees on any grounds available to them.” [Judgment on Stipulation, p. 5:8-9]. A Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed and served the same date. On October 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a Notice of Lodging and Reinstating Plaintiff’s Attorney Fee Motion, with a hearing date of December 13, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ANTONY MLADINEO ET AL. VS WINE & ROSES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for AttorneysFees, Costs and Service Payments is GRANTED. Jayne C. Lee Judge of the Superior Court Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

YOUNG KYUNG CHOI VS KYUNG HWA LEE, ET AL.

AND HYUNG KYU KIM’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEES Background On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff Young Kyung Choi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against various defendants. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on September 13, 2019 against Defendants Kyung Hwa Lee (“Lee”), Dentway Auto Collision, Inc. (“Dentway Collision”), Hyung Kyu Kim (“Kim”), Allen K. Hong, and Allen K. Hong Accountancy Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting 15 causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

Berman wrongly filed papers with the Family Court in support of a motion for attorneys fees. He made this same claim in an earlier lawsuit against Ms. Berman which was stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute. C. Attorneys Fees. The anti-SLAPP statute requires a fee award to a prevailing defendant. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.l6(c)(l); Cabral v. Martins (2009) 177 Cal. App.4th 471, 490.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

COFFEE + FOOD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS JEANNE LEONIAN, ET AL.

.: 19STCV14497 Hearing Date: October 22, 2020 Defendant Larchmont Place, LLC and Defendant Massco Investments, Inc.’s motion for attorneysfees is granted in the reduced amount of $107,534.56 Background This action is a commercial landlord-tenant dispute.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

KNOX, ET AL. V. AN IMPORTS OF STEVENS CREEK, INC., ET AL.

Sencer in Support of Motion for AttorneysFees, Litigation Costs, and 15 Named Plaintiff Enhancements, ¶¶ 22-23.) As the court stated in connection with preliminary 16 approval, the fees and costs are very reasonable in the context of the overall settlement. The 17 requested fees and costs of $172,000 are approved. 18 The court also approves the $5,300 requested for settlement administration costs.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS VS CITY OF GLENDALE, ET AL.

On September 9, 2020, Plaintiff brought a motion for attorneysfees. On September 17, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition. On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply. Legal Standard With respect to attorney fees and costs, unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., CCP §§ 1032, et seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.¿(CCP § 1021.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ART LOS ANGELES VS 1717 UDT LLC

Hours spent on the motion for attorneys fees: Attorney Hours Worked William H. Dance 13.90 Mr. Dance: Defendant’s initial motion for attorneys fees, which was drafted by Mr. Dance, left the Court unable to determine the reasonableness of either the rates or hours billed for, and was so incomplete that a continuance was required. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how 13.90 hours were reasonably spent preparing such a motion. Given that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREA GALANTE VS JASON A WEISS ET AL

Galante argues that a since a motion for summary judgment requires more work than a motion to amend and motion for attorneysfees it is unreasonable to be billed a near equal amount for work done after the motion for summary judgment. Galante states that the fees should be reduced by 50% of the September 2020 invoice, i.e., Weiss should only be awarded $16,800.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

GHAI VS AMERICAN CUPS & PLATES INC

Revised Tentative Ruling on Continued Motion for Attorneys' Fees Ghai v. American Cups & Plates, Case No. 2018-056891 Bench Trial: March 2-3, 2020, Dept. 72 Tentative Decision: March 4, 2020 (ROA 57-59) PSOD: May 8, 2020 (ROA 62) Hearing on SOD: June 29, 2020 (ROA 69, 73) SOD: June 29, 2020 (ROA 74) Judgment: July 31, 2020 (ROA 76-77) Continued hearing: Oct. 23, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This is an employment action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHRISTOPHER DUGGER, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTOR, LLC,

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS CHRISTOPHER DUGGER AND ANGELA DUGGER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 1794(d) Background This is a Lemon Law Action involving the purchase of a 2013 Chevrolet Cruze (the “Subject Vehicle”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 104     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.