Summary
The California Court of Appeal affirmed post-judgment orders awarding Diana Bronshteyn $4,889,786.03 in attorney fees after she prevailed against the California Department of Consumer Affairs in a disability-discrimination action. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining counsel’s hourly rates, accepting the claimed hours, and applying multipliers to fees incurred before and after the jury verdict.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the reasonable hourly rates for Bronshteyn's attorneys.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by accepting the number of hours billed, including after voluntary reductions for travel, conferences, clerical work, and supplemental briefing.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding lodestar multipliers, including a multiplier for post-verdict and fee-litigation work, and by failing expressly to discuss the burden on public funds.
Holdings
- The trial court acted within its discretion in accepting the plaintiff's fee expert's analysis, considering the judge's firsthand observation of counsel's performance, and awarding rates at the upper end of the Los Angeles market.
- The Department failed to establish an abuse of discretion in the trial court's acceptance of the hours claimed, and arguments concerning block billing, over-litigation, and administrative work were forfeited because they were not fully presented below.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in awarding a 1.75 multiplier for work through the jury verdict and a 1.25 multiplier for post-verdict work because the fee award remained discretionary and contingent until the final fee order.
Key quotations
“The seasoned trial judge is the eyewitness to this parade.” (Part II.A)
“The contingent nature of the fee must be incorporated into the calculation.” (Part II.C)
“We affirm the orders and award costs to the respondent.” (Disposition)
Factual background
Bronshteyn, who had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, sued her former employer for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, disability discrimination, and failure to prevent discrimination. The Department refused early settlement discussions, opposed amendment of the complaint, litigated demurrer and summary-adjudication issues, and engaged in contentious discovery and trial proceedings. A jury found for Bronshteyn on all counts and awarded $3,324,262, after which the trial court awarded her counsel $4,889,786.03 in statutory attorney fees based on approved hourly rates, documented hours, and multipliers.
Procedural history
Bronshteyn sued the Department under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. After a six-week jury trial, she prevailed on all counts and obtained a $3,324,262 damages verdict. The trial court denied the Department's posttrial motions, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in Bronshteyn I. The trial court then awarded Bronshteyn statutory attorney fees and costs, including lodestar enhancements, and the Department appealed the fee award. The Court of Appeal affirmed.