When the plaintiff files a case with the prospect of recovering attorney fees, the defense is fully entitled to fight hard. But the defense does so knowing it might end up paying for all the work for both sides. Filing a flood of unselective and fruitless motions can be counterproductive if the plaintiff ultimately prevails, for the bill for that flood will wash up on the defense doorstep. Then the court may look with a wary eye at defense complaints about a whopping plaintiff’s bill.
We recently affirmed a judgment in favor of Diana Bronshteyn against her former employer the California Department of Consumer Affairs. (See Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs (May 12, 2025, B325678) [nonpub. opn.] (Bronshteyn I).)
In this second appeal, the Department argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $4,889,786.03 in attorney fees to Bronshteyn’s counsel. As the trial court aptly observed: “[t]he fact that [the Department] did not settle the case early might or might not be good litigation strategy or bad litigation strategy . . . But the biggest thing it does is it makes it hard for [the Department] to claim that [Bronshteyn] shouldn’t have spent money litigating to try the case, which is reflected in the number of hours that [counsel] billed.”
We affirm the trial court’s careful and well-reasoned ruling. Statutory citations refer to the Government Code.
There are 0 comments