In re Tobacco Cases CA4/1

In Re TOBACCO CASES I

Good Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 398·216 Cal. App. 4th 570·2013 WL 2156561
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 2013D061077, D061676California7,221 words

Opinion

Opinion

McCONNELL, J.

RJ. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Reynolds) challenges trial court orders issued after remand in the last appeal in this matter, which award the People of the State of California $2,943,920.63 in contractual attorney fees as the prevailing parties in an action to enforce a consent decree and final judgment (Consent Decree) entered on a master settlement agreement (MSA). Reynolds contends the court erred in its prevailing party determination because the People did not achieve “greater relief’ on the contract as required by Civil Code section 1717 (section 1717), subdivision (b)(1)). Alternatively, Reynolds contends the court erred by applying market rates for San Francisco Bay Area attorneys when determining the lodestar amount of fees, instead of local San Diego market rate and by not further reducing the lodestar amount in consideration of the People’s partial success. We affirm the orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November 1998 Reynolds and several other tobacco manufacturers entered into the MSA with most states, including California, to resolve government claims pertaining to public health concerns about smoking and the marketing of tobacco products to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.