Source: https://www.calattorneysfees.com/2017/07/employment-indemnity-reasonableness-of-fees-requests-for-admissions-four-unpublished-decisions-on-ju.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:48:21+00:00

Document:
Fee Reasonableness—Neman Real Estate Investments, LLC v. Oken. Case Nos. B263196/B263718 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 11, 2017) (unpublished).
In this first one, defendants won a commercial property dispute and were awarded costs/fees of $619,566.75 based on a “blended” $495 hourly rate to L.A. real estate litigators that happened to be “below market.” The appellate court affirmed, rejecting arguments that the rates allowed had to those charged to clients, had to take into account third party indemnity or insurance obligations, or had to be based on “non-blended” rates.
Employment—Allyn v. Fallbrook Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. D068325 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 11, 2017) (unpublished).
In the second case, former employee won a $1.2 million retaliation verdict against school district, but the trial judge denied employee’s fee request of $791,750 under Labor Code section 218.5(a) against the school district. The appellate court agreed that the fee request under section the Labor Code section did not apply to a public school district.
Employment/Requests For Admissions -- Harris v. InboundProspect, Inc., Case No. G052797 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 11, 2017) (unpublished) (author: Fybel, J.).
Case number three involved FEHA fees of $3,751.20 and RFA “costs of proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 of $4,951.30 against a plaintiff losing a suit against a defendant because the defendant was not an employer. The defense had sought exposure ranging from $24,784.44 - $60,894.06, such that the appellate court found no abuse of discretion on the amount of fees/costs awarded given that plaintiff’s financial position was explored by the lower court. Plaintiff could not support its “employee” position.
Indemnity—Marin Schools Ins. Authority v. Schools Excess Liability Fund, Case No. A145365 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 11, 2017) (unpublished).
This last decision involved defendant in an indemnity action prevailing on a summary judgment motion. The issue was whether the trial judge properly awarded fees under CCP § 1038 to the defense because the action lacked reasonable cause and was not brought in good faith. Although the action was thin, the summary win was not dispositive and did not suffice to establish that the action was frivolous in nature. Fee award reversed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2033
 v. 
 § 1038