Ceja

DISCUSSION

The lodestar method Ceja first contends the trial court erred by eschewing the lodestar method to calculate her attorney fee award and instead employing an across-the-board cut to her fee request. But the page of the clerk’s transcript Ceja cites to purportedly support this contention does not show that the court below did any such thing; rather, it specifies the documents filed in the case, the amount of Ceja’s fee request, and the fees the court awarded. Without evidence to the contrary, we presume the court below employed the correct method to calculate attorney fees. (Denham

2 v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; see also Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 818-819 [lodestar method used to calculate attorney fees under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act].) We accordingly reject Ceja’s first contention. (Mueller v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 809, 816, fn. 5.) Upward multiplier Next, without citing any authority, Ceja argues the trial court erred because it did not consider her request for an upward multiplier. We disregard conclusory arguments not supported by legal analysis or authority.…