22
barrier to’ ” apportionment is “ ‘inextricably intertwined issues.’ ” (Id. at p. 1297.) The
court nevertheless held some fees had to be apportioned in the setting there, which
included that the trial court assessed all fees against Martin, including trial preparation
and “trial time (seven weeks) of plaintiffs’ counsel.” The Court of Appeal held that
“Martin’s part of the case could have been tried in considerably less time than seven
weeks had the trial not taken up issues that involved the other nonsettling subcontractors.
It strikes us as eminently unfair to tag Martin with all of plaintiffs’ attorney fees for the
entire seven-week trial.” (Ibid.) There is nothing unfair about the award here.
Prometheus’ brief asserts that we “may also see fit to reduce the overall attorney
fee award because the trial court offered no reasoning for its decision.” The assertion is
less than candid, as Judge Bergeron found that the “amount of fees requested is
reasonable.” This is enough, as a ruling on a fee motion does not require judicial
explanation or a statement of decision. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1294;
Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 67.)
The Verdict Form Was Not Error
Prometheus’s last argument, set forth in a page, is that “[t]he trial court also erred
when it overruled Prometheus’s objection to the single verdict form which did not allow
the jury to apportion damages as to each cause of action.” The essence of the argument is
that the damages portion of the verdict should have been set forth specifically between
contract and tort claims, apparently so that the attorney fees could be apportioned.
Prometheus demonstrates no error.
As the leading treatise on trial practice puts it, “The use of special verdicts is
discretionary with the trial court. Thus, refusal of a request for a special verdict is rarely
ground for reversal on appeal.” (Wegner, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and
Evidence (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 17:14, p. 17-6).
Prometheus has shown no abuse.
Beyond that, to the extent that Prometheus’s argument focuses on attorney fees, its
argument would fail under the cases and authorities discussed above.