California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Cuadra v. Bradshaw, 53 Cal.App.4th 869, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 102 (Cal. App. 1997):
In contrast, here, the trial court did consider the documentation submitted by counsel for petitioners in arriving at its fee determination. Not only did the court consider the amount of hours expended on the case, the court awarded fees to each of the attorneys for petitioners based on the amount of their participation in the case. That the court chose to reduce the lodestar amount due to duplication of work among counsel for petitioners does not reflect an abuse of discretion. (See Bernardi v. Yeutter (9th Cir.1991) 951 F.2d 971, 975 [district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing fee award in half due to duplication of effort among class counsel].)
Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying a multiplier to the lodestar amount. The trial court based its decision to use a multiplier on several of the factors set forth in Serrano III including that the case involved a complex issue of first impression, that there were exceptional results and a significant benefit to the public, that petitioners' counsel exhibited skill and that payment of their fees was contingent. The record fully justifies the trial court's findings. (See Kern River Pub. Access Com. v. City of Bakersfield (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1205, 1228-1230, 217 Cal.Rptr. 125 [court's reliance on sole factor of complexity of litigation in imposing l.5 multiplier not unreasonable].) We cannot conclude that a multiplier of l.5 was arbitrary or that it bore "no reasonable connection between the lodestar figure and the fee ultimately awarded." (Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 324, 193 Cal.Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704.)
Petitioners are also entitled to attorney fees on appeal. "[A]bsent circumstances rendering the award unjust, fees recoverable under section 1021.5 ordinarily include compensation for all hours reasonably spent, including those necessary to establish and defend the fee claim." (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639, 186 Cal.Rptr. 754, 652 P.2d 985.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.