Opinion ID: 2244131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Lodestar Analysis for Reasonable Attorney's Fees

Text: Appellant does not dispute the reasonableness of the fee award or the method of calculation on appeal. However, the lodestar method of calculating reasonable fee awards is the `starting point of every fee award.' ( Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48, fn. 23, 141 Cal. Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303 ( Serrano III ).) [S]ince determination of the lodestar figures is so `[fundamental' to calculating the amount of the award, the exercise of that discretion must be based on the lodestar adjustment method. ( Press, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 322, 193 Cal.Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704, citing Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 48-49, 141 Cal.Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303; Mandel v. Lackner (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 747, 758, 155 Cal.Rptr. 269 ( Mandel ).) When a party is entitled to attorney fees under section 1021.5, the amount of the award must be determined according to the guidelines set forth by this court in Serrano III. The trial court must first determine a touchstone or lodestar figure based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case. ( Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 48, 141 Cal.Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303.) After making this calculation, the court may consider other factors and assign a multiplier that may augment or diminish the lodestar amount. [3] In its April 10, 2006 order, the trial court found that the fees incurred were reasonable and necessary. We review those findings for abuse of discretion, i.e., whether the amount awarded bear[s] some reasonable relationship to the lodestar figure and to the purpose of the private attorney general doctrine. ( Press, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 324, 193 Cal.Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704.)