multiplicity factors in California

2016From these differences, the Mountjoys draw the conclusion that “[i]f Mr. Gaddis was worth $260 an hour, Ms. Henderson was worth far more.” We find no merit in this argument. “ ‘[A] reasonable hourly rate is the product of a multiplicity of factors ...[:] the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case.’ ” (Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 145 ], quoting Copeland v. Marshall (D.C.

2016From these differences, the Mountjoys draw the conclusion that “[i]f Mr. Gaddis was worth $260 an hour, Ms. Henderson was worth far more.” We find no merit in this argument. “ ‘[A] reasonable hourly rate is the product of a multiplicity of factors ...[:] the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case.’ ” (Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 145 ], quoting Copeland v. Marshall (D.C.

2015(See, e.g., Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 130, fn. 7 [court may not take judicial notice of truth of hearsay statements in court files].) Because no request for judicial notice was made, the issue was not raised or resolved. 5 The lodestar by its nature accounts for the lawyer’s accomplishments. “[T]he ‘“reasonable hourly rate [used to calculate the lodestar] is the product of a multiplicity of factors . . . the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case.”’ [Citation.]”

2015(Boldface omitted.) They essentially assert that the trial court should not have credited the evidence submitted by Habitat regarding the reasonableness of the requested rates and instead should have credited evidence submitted by the City and the Regents that they believe showed that the requested rates were “significantly inflated . . . .” “[T]he ‘ “reasonable hourly rate [used to calculate the lodestar] is the product of a multiplicity of factors . . . the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirabili

2019(DP Pham LLC v. Cheadle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 653, 674 [party forfeits argument by failing to adequately support it with argument and relevant legal authority].) 22 “In making its calculation [of a reasonable hourly rate], the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other

2019(DP Pham LLC v. Cheadle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 653, 674 [party forfeits argument by failing to adequately support it with argument and relevant legal authority].) 22 “In making its calculation [of a reasonable hourly rate], the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other

2019(DP Pham LLC v. Cheadle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 653, 674 [party forfeits argument by failing to adequately support it with argument and relevant legal authority].) 22 “In making its calculation [of a reasonable hourly rate], the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other

2015(See, e.g., Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 130, fn. 7 [court may not take judicial notice of truth of hearsay statements in court files].) Because no request for judicial notice was made, the issue was not raised or resolved. 5 The lodestar by its nature accounts for the lawyer’s accomplishments. “[T]he ‘“reasonable hourly rate [used to calculate the lodestar] is the product of a multiplicity of factors . . . the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case.”’ [Citation.]”

2007(See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1139 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 17 P.3d 735 ] [“the ‘ “reasonable hourly rate ... is the product of a multiplicity of factors ... the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case” ’ ” (italics added)]; Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 792 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 494 P.2d 9 ] [“one of the significant factors in determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee. is *577 ‘the amount involved and the result obtained’ ”]; Contractors Labor Pool,

2007(See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1139 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 17 P.3d 735 ] [“the ‘ “reasonable hourly rate ... is the product of a multiplicity of factors ... the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case” ’ ” (italics added)]; Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 792 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 494 P.2d 9 ] [“one of the significant factors in determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee. is *577 ‘the amount involved and the result obtained’ ”]; Contractors Labor Pool,

2007(See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1139 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 17 P.3d 735 ] [“the ‘ “reasonable hourly rate ... is the product of a multiplicity of factors ... the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case” ’ ” (italics added)]; Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 792 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 494 P.2d 9 ] [“one of the significant factors in determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee. is *577 ‘the amount involved and the result obtained’ ”]; Contractors Labor Pool,

2007(See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1139 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 17 P.3d 735 ] [“the ‘ “reasonable hourly rate ... is the product of a multiplicity of factors ... the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case” ’ ” (italics added)]; Fracasse v. Brent (1972) 6 Cal.3d 784, 792 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 494 P.2d 9 ] [“one of the significant factors in determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee. is *577 ‘the amount involved and the result obtained’ ”]; Contractors Labor Pool,

2006Because Google’s uncontroverted evidence established the baseline for the award of fees, any departure from the amount requested had to be based on some evidence in the record suggesting the fee was unreasonable, not (as Google puts it) on a “wholesale rejection of the evidence in favor of the self-interested and unsupported claim of opposing counsel.” (Shaw v. AAA Engineering & Drafting, Inc. (10th Cir. 2000) 213 F.3d 538, 543 [the opponent’s time is not an immutable yardstick of reasonableness]; Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery (11th Cir. 1988) 836 F.2d 1292, 1305, fn. 3 [th

2006Because Google's uncontroverted evidence established the baseline for the award of fees, any departure from the amount requested had to be based on some evidence in the record suggesting the fee was unreasonable, not (as Google puts it) on a "wholesale rejection of the evidence in favor of the self-interested and unsupported claim of opposing counsel." ( Shaw v. AAA Engineering Drafting, Inc. (10th Cir. 2000) 213 F.3d 538 , 543 [the opponent's time is not an immutable yardstick of reasonableness]; Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery (11th Cir. 1988) 836 F.2d 1292 , 1305 , fn. 3 [

2006Because Google’s uncontroverted evidence established the baseline for the award of fees, any departure from the amount requested had to be based on some evidence in the record suggesting the fee was unreasonable, not (as Google puts it) on a “wholesale rejection of the evidence in favor of the self-interested and unsupported claim of opposing counsel.” (Shaw v. AAA Engineering & Drafting, Inc. (10th Cir. 2000) 213 F.3d 538, 543 [the opponent’s time is not an immutable yardstick of reasonableness]; Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery (11th Cir. 1988) 836 F.2d 1292, 1305, fn. 3 [th

2006Because Google's uncontroverted evidence established the baseline for the award of fees, any departure from the amount requested had to be based on some evidence in the record suggesting the fee was unreasonable, not (as Google puts it) on a "wholesale rejection of the evidence in favor of the self-interested and unsupported claim of opposing counsel." ( Shaw v. AAA Engineering Drafting, Inc. (10th Cir. 2000) 213 F.3d 538 , 543 [the opponent's time is not an immutable yardstick of reasonableness]; Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery (11th Cir. 1988) 836 F.2d 1292 , 1305 , fn. 3 [

1976(See, e.g., Harris v. United States (1971) 404 U.S. 1232 , 1236 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 25 , 29, 92 S.Ct. 10 ]; Cohen v. United States (1961) 7 L.Ed.2d 13 [ 82 S.Ct. 8 , 9]; Bandy v. United States (1960) 5 L.Ed.2d 218 [ 81 S.Ct. 197 , 198]; cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (b).) 9 If a defendant can demonstrate that the likelihood of his flight is minimal in light of these criteria, he should be considered as having presented at least a prima facie case for release pending appeal.

1976(See, e.g., Harris v. United States (1971) 404 U.S. 1232, 1236 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 25 , 29, 92 S.Ct. 10 ]; Cohen v. United States (1961) 7 L.Ed.2d 13 [ 82 S.Ct. 8 , 9]; Bandy v. United States (1960) 5 L.Ed.2d 218 [ 81 S.Ct. 197 , 198]; cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (b).) 9 If a defendant can demonstrate that the likelihood of his flight is minimal in light of these criteria, he should be considered as having presented at least a prima facie case for release pending appeal.

1970Where the question is one of judgment, the promisor’s determination that he is not satisfied, when made in good faith, has been held to be a defense to an action on the contract. [Citations.]” In Call v. Alcan Pacific Co., 251 Cal.App.2d 442, 447 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 763 ], the subcontractor was required to supply skilled workmen to the satisfaction of the general contractor.

1970Where the question is one of judgment, the promisor’s determination that he is not satisfied, when made in good faith, has been held to be a defense to an action on the contract. [Citations.]” In Call v. Alcan Pacific Co., 251 Cal.App.2d 442, 447 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 763 ], the subcontractor was required to supply skilled workmen to the satisfaction of the general contractor.