 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wong v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
aims the Wongs were entitled to no attorney fees at all. Anaheim asserts that the proper attorney fee award should have been calculated in this manner: (1) a net real property award amount of $465,995 should have been multiplied by the one-third contingency fee amount for a resulting figure of $155,332 in fees actually incurred, and (2) an offset in the amount of $385,567 should have been applied to the $155,332 fee amount, for an attorney fee award amount of zero.
While Anaheim does not take the time to explain, in its opening brief, how it came up with the $465,995 figure for the net real property award, the explanation is contained in its opposition to the Wongs' attorney fees motion. In the opposition, Anaheim stated that the (approximate) judgment amount of $1,100,094 (which already reflected offsets), minus the amount of relocation expenses and emotional distress damages, was equal to $465,995. Also, we observe that if one subtracts the amount of the total offset as indicated in the judgment from the fair market value of the Wongs' property as reflected in the special verdict, one arrives at a figure of $465,995.08. However, Anaheim fails to cite any authority dictating that the determination of the attorney fee award must be made by multiplying the figure so obtained by the contingency fee amount.
Also, Anaheim fails to articulate the exact nature of the $385,567 amount it contends should be offset against the proposed $155,332 attorney fee amount. It vaguely describes the $385,567 figure as a settlement payment from 396. However, we have already stated that the Wongs' judgment must be remanded for a correct determination of offsets.
Most importantly, however, Anaheim largely ignores the various factors that a court should take into consideration in determining the amount of a fee award in an inverse condemnation case. The court is charged with determining both whether the fees were actually incurred and whether the fees were reasonable. (Andre v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 539.) Anaheim tries to convince us that the amount of fees incurred was less than the amount awarded, because of its offset theory. As we have stated, however, it cites no authority for the proposition that offsets must be applied in the manner it suggests in determining attorney fee awards. Moreover, we observe that at least one case has held that the determination of fees should not be based solely on the contingency agreement. (Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 957.)
Anaheim overlooks the question of whether the fees awarded were reasonable. The Wongs' attorney declared that his law firm had expended 5,117 hours on the case over a period of seven years. In reviewing the Wongs' fee request, the court remarked that there had been two trials, the first one lasting three months and the second lasting six to eight weeks. After discounting some of the hours worked, to a total of approximately 3,300 approved hours, and allocating 1,100 hours to each of the three groups of plaintiffs that had been represented collectively, the court concluded that the fee was reasonable at a blended rate of approximately $307 per hour.
As this shows, the court did not apply a mathematical offset formula of the type Anaheim desires. Rather, it looked at the total number of hours worked, the stature of the law firm, the number of years involved, the number of trials involved, and the length of the trials. These are all appropriate factors for consideration. (See Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 957-958.) Anaheim makes no mention of the court's analysis and makes no effort to state w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|