Becharoff Capital Corp. v. Dagstanyan CA2/5
Opinion
Opinion
Moor, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendants and appellants Grant Dagstanyan, Nelly Dagstanyan,1 and Andranik Alexsanyan (Appellants) appeal a post-judgment order for attorney fees. Appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion when it reduced the requested hourly rate and the number of hours awarded in calculating the fee award. They further contend it was error to credit the amount of the award against an underlying judgment, previously assigned to plaintiff and respondent Becharoff Capital Corporation. Becharoff contends the appealed orders were valid, and further argues that there was no basis for the award of any attorney fees at all. Appellants have failed to carry their burden to show error. They have not shown the court’s reduction of the requested hours or hourly rates was an abuse of discretion, nor have they persuaded us that the court erred when it ordered the fee award to be offset against an earlier judgment. Because Becharoff did not file a cross-appeal, it has forfeited its argument that the fee award was invalid. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A brief discussion of the factual and procedural history behind the judgment in the current case is necessary to