The district judge also properly reduced
the lodestar fee requests as follows: 20 % for recreation of time entries; $ 32,470 for vague time entries; $ 4,880.73 for lack of proper substantiation; $ 50,721 for clerical tasks; and $ 25,827.50 for excessive billing.
Not exact matches
After supplemental
fee papers were filed, the trial judge then focused on the $ 859,898.75
lodestar request.
Tenant
requested attorney's
fees based on a $ 150,000
lodestar but the trial judge awarded only $ 10,000 after observing that there were questionable billing practices by the prevailing party's attorneys, only about $ 25,000 in claims were involved on both sides, tenant was unsuccessful on some claims, and there were contentious skirmishes of an unreasonable nature.
The trial judge had awarded prevailing City $ 266,870.40 in
fees, primarily the
lodestar request plus a 10 % enhancement (including work on a cross-complaint) and only $ 2,250 for «
fees on
fees» work (presenting the
fee motion for adjudication).
Class counsel
requested a
lodestar multiplier of between 2.03 to 2.13 for a total
requested attorneys»
fee award of $ 6,333,333.33.
The defense suggested $ 30,000 was a reasonable award, but the trial judge awarded plaintiff $ 58,341.50 as a reasonable
fee lodestar, denying the
request for any multiplier.
Defendant finally argued the time records were incomplete / unreliable, but the appellate court dispatched this one by noting this factor was used to deny a
requested lodestar enhancement by plaintiff's counsel such that the defense did get some traction on this argument, but traction already factored in by the lower court in reducing claimed
fees.
Subsequently, the lower court awarded the defense the entirety of her
requested fees based on a
fee - shifting provision in the San Francisco ordinance, and awarded plaintiffs $ 3,750 in
fees each (much reduced from the almost $ 142,000
lodestar request plus a 1.35 positive multiplier) based on the settlement stipulation
fee reservation clause.