Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)

Citation: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Parent Document: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810131/morrison-v-vineyard-creek-lp/ ↗

Full Text

1,875 chars

Vineyard Creek contends the denial of Morrison’s fee request was also proper because Morrison’s request was for such an unreasonable amount. (Citing Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 976 [104 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 224 P.3d 41] [“in light of plaintiff’s minimal success and grossly inflated attorney fee request, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees’’]; Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 [186 Cal.Rptr. 754, 652 P.2d 985] [“[a] fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether”]; Abouab v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 643, 674 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 206] [upholding denial of attorney fees]; Choate v. County of Orange (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 312, 324 [103 Cal.Rptr.2d 339] [Sometimes “a reasonable fee is zero, especially where the recovery is de minimis, establishes no important precedent and does not change the relationship of the parties”].) Vineyard Creek argues that the case was essentially settled in June 2007 when it withdrew its opposition to Morrison’s child daycare home and agreed to pay her actual losses; it also asserts an expert witness opined that Morrison’s attorneys’ actions were unreasonable, their charges were excessive, duplicative, and largely unnecessary, and no complaint needed to have been filed at all. In its order denying fees, the trial court described Morrison’s role in “tenaciously and unreasonably” litigating the case as the reason why the lawsuit “lasted so long and cost so much,” and “it appeared likely that [Morrison’s] attorneys were trying to dig *1274up information on defendants by which they could bring additional litigation against them in the future.” Morrison disputes these assertions. We need not and do not address this issue to resolve the appeal.

Other Sections in This Document (83)

Full Text