20
“ ‘Our Supreme Court has recognized that the lodestar is the basic fee for
comparable legal services in the community and that it may be adjusted by the court
based on a number of factors in order “to fix a fee at the fair market value for the
particular action. . . . ‘[T]he Legislature appears to have endorsed the [lodestar
adjustment] method of calculating fees, except in certain limited situations.’ [Citation.]
When the Legislature has determined that the lodestar adjustment approach is not
appropriate, it has expressly so stated.” [Citations.] . . . Here, as appropriate in this type
of case, counsel were compensated based on the lodestar calculated by the court, without
adjustment.’ ”
Here, as noted, the Hjelms’s motion was supported by detailed declarations from
their counsel that included all of the actual time and expense records in the case. The
motion was based on a lodestar analysis with no multiplier, and with an hourly rate that
was below market rate for an attorney of counsel’s experience. (See Heritage Pacific
Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.) In short, the Hjelms
produced substantial—and unrebutted—evidence of the amount of hours spent by their
counsel. Judge Bergeron, who had been involved with the case almost from inception,
determined that the fees claimed based on that evidence were “reasonable.” He was in
the best position to determine that, a determination within his discretion. (See PLCM
Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096 [hourly rate]; Syers Properties III,
Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 698 [number of hours].) We can reverse only
if Prometheus establishes an abuse of that discretion. (Chacon v. Litke (2010)
181 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1258.) It has not.
To the extent Prometheus argues that Judge Bergeron did not apportion fee, settled
law is contrary: “Once a trial court determines entitlement to an award of attorney fees,
apportionment of that award rests within the court’s sound discretion.” (Carver v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 498, 505.) And the burden is on
Prometheus “to establish that discretion was clearly abused and a miscarriage of justice
resulted.” (Carver, supra, at p. 505.) Prometheus ignores this law—and the record,
where the issues were “inextricably intertwined.”