|
|
Clifford v. American Drug Stores8/22/2005
show an abuse of discretion, she has also failed to meet her burden to show that she might have obtained a favorable result absent the alleged error.
Clifford also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on her request for attorney fees with regard to post trial motions, because it followed a "mechanical approach" and a "rule of thumb" in allowing only a percentage of the time incurred by counsel. She points out that "absent circumstances rendering an award unjust, the fee should ordinarily include compensation for all hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee." (Serrano IV, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 624.)
Clifford does not provide authority to support her characterization of allowing a percentage of the requested fees as "mechanical" or the result of a "rule-of-thumb," and her references to the record do not show that the trial court was mechanically following an approach that did not include a consideration of what hours were "reasonably spent." (Serrano IV, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 624.)
"The question of the reasonableness of the order for attorney's fees is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court [citations], and in the absence of a clear showing of abuse its determination will not be disturbed on appeal. [Citations.] `"Abuse of discretion is never presumed. It must be affirmatively established. A reviewing court is not authorized to revise the lower court's judgment even if it should be of the opinion that it would have made a different award had the matter been submitted to its judgment in the first instance, in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion."' [Citation.]" (Smith v. Smith (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 952, 958.)
"It is a well-known principle that when attorneys' fees are requested the court does not need separate evidence to establish the reasonable value of whatever should be justly awarded, the theory being that the trial judge is competent from his own knowledge of legal practice to fix the amount of the fees. [Citations.]" (Spencer v. Harmon Enterprises, Inc. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 614, 621.) "The `experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.' [Citations.]" (Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 49.)
The trial court's judgment may be deemed clearly wrong only "if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court's action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that he did. [Citations.]" (Newbauer v. Newbauer (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 36, 40.) It is the burden of the party challenging an attorney fee award to establish an abuse of discretion and a resulting miscarriage of justice. (Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 498, 505.)
Cliffor
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 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|