fee setting inquiry in California

2023(Cf. Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1015 [“[t]he effect of a general reversal is to create a situation where no judgment is deemed to have been entered”].) As a matter of best practice and to facilitate any future appellate review, we encourage the trial court on remand to provide a full explanation for any significant departures from the lodestar9 it may make in awarding fees. section 1717 may be awarded to the prevailing party on each contract,” fn. omitted].) 9 See generally PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th at page 1095 (“the fee setting inquiry in Cali

2023MacCarthy timely appealed. 5 DISCUSSION A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review In California, the fee setting inquiry begins with the “‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (PLCM Group).) “The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Ibid.) Whether a legal basis exists for an attorney fee award is a question of law that we examine de novo, an

2016(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140 (Ketchum); Cruz, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274 .) “[A]bsent circumstances rendering the award unjust, an attorney[’s] fee award should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1133 , italics omitted.) The fee-setting inquiry begins with the “lodestar,” the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2016(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140 (Ketchum); Cruz, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274 .) “[A]bsent circumstances rendering the award unjust, an attorney[’s] fee award should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1133 , italics omitted.) The fee-setting inquiry begins with the “lodestar,” the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2015(Bui, supra, at p. 1365 .) “The moving party bears ‘[t]he burden [of] establishing] each prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.’ ” (Ibid.) Where attorney fees are awarded under section 1021.5, “the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852 , *737 870 [ 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 ].) “Next, the court engages in the multiplier analysis, and determines whether the lodestar figure should be a

2015(Bui, supra, at p. 1365 .) “The moving party bears ‘[t]he burden [of] establishing] each prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.’ ” (Ibid.) Where attorney fees are awarded under section 1021.5, “the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852 , *737 870 [ 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 ].) “Next, the court engages in the multiplier analysis, and determines whether the lodestar figure should be a

2023(Cf. Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1015 [“[t]he effect of a general reversal is to create a situation where no judgment is deemed to have been entered”].) As a matter of best practice and to facilitate any future appellate review, we encourage the trial court on remand to provide a full explanation for any significant departures from the lodestar9 it may make in awarding fees. section 1717 may be awarded to the prevailing party on each contract,” fn. omitted].) 9 See generally PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th at page 1095 (“the fee setting inquiry in Cali

2015(Bui, supra, at p. 1365 .) “The moving party bears ‘[t]he burden [of] establishing] each prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.’ ” (Ibid.) Where attorney fees are awarded under section 1021.5, “the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852 , *737 870 [ 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 ].) “Next, the court engages in the multiplier analysis, and determines whether the lodestar figure should be a

2015(Bui, supra, at p. 1365 .) “The moving party bears ‘[t]he burden [of] establishing] each prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.’ ” (Ibid.) Where attorney fees are awarded under section 1021.5, “the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852 , *737 870 [ 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 ].) “Next, the court engages in the multiplier analysis, and determines whether the lodestar figure should be a

2012(Visher v. City of Malibu (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 364, 368 [23 Cal.Rpfcr.3d 816].) “ ‘[T]he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.’ ” (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 ], quoting Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 749 P.2d 339 ].) In California, the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2012(Visher v. City of Malibu (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 364, 368 [23 Cal.Rpfcr.3d 816].) “ ‘[T]he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.’ ” (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 ], quoting Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 749 P.2d 339 ].) In California, the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2012(Visher v. City of Malibu (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 364, 368 [23 Cal.Rpfcr.3d 816].) “ ‘[T]he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.’ ” (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 ], quoting Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 749 P.2d 339 ].) In California, the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2012(Visher v. City of Malibu (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 364, 368 [23 Cal.Rpfcr.3d 816].) “ ‘[T]he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.’ ” (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 ], quoting Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 749 P.2d 339 ].) In California, the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2012(Visher v. City of Malibu (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 364, 368 [23 Cal.Rpfcr.3d 816].) “ ‘[T]he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.’ ” (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 ], quoting Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 749 P.2d 339 ].) In California, the fee setting inquiry ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2011The court explained “the fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. ‘California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.’ [Citation.] The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler , at p. 1095.) The court rejected the opposing party’s argument the trial court erred by not

2011The court explained “the fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. ‘California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.’ [Citation.] The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler , at p. 1095.) The court rejected the opposing party’s argument the trial court erred by not

2000“California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.” (Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004-1005 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 145 ].) The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.

2000“California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.” (Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004-1005 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 145 ].) The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.

2000(Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303 ]; Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 215, 228 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 525 ] [an appellate court will interfere with a determination of reasonable attorney fees “only where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion”].) As the Court of Appeal herein observed, the fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2000(Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303 ]; Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 215, 228 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 525 ] [an appellate court will interfere with a determination of reasonable attorney fees “only where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion”].) As the Court of Appeal herein observed, the fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2000(Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303 ]; Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 215, 228 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 525 ] [an appellate court will interfere with a determination of reasonable attorney fees “only where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion”].) As the Court of Appeal herein observed, the fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

2000(Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303 ]; Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 215, 228 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 525 ] [an appellate court will interfere with a determination of reasonable attorney fees “only where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion”].) As the Court of Appeal herein observed, the fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.