Caseflicks

California Court of Appeal • 1988

City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders

203 Cal. App. 3d 78 | 249 Cal. Rptr. 606 | 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 689

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, hourly rates and hours worked begin an eminent domain fee calculation; they do not cap a reasonable award when other supported factors warrant more.

Background

Oakland brought an eminent domain action to acquire the Raiders’ football franchise. After years of litigation, the Raiders prevailed: the courts concluded that the City’s proposed acquisition would violate the federal commerce clause. As the prevailing parties, the Raiders sought their litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney fees.

The trial court calculated $853,756 by multiplying counsel’s hours by rates charged by top Bay Area firms. It treated that figure as a starting point, then awarded $2 million in attorney fees for work through the 1984 judgment, citing the case’s difficulty, urgent demands, deferred payment, and importance to the Raiders. The City appealed, arguing that the court could not award more than the hourly-rate calculation.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether reasonable attorney fees in an eminent domain action are limited to hours worked multiplied by prevailing hourly rates.

Holding

No. That calculation is the starting point, but the trial court may increase it to account for other factors bearing on the reasonable value of counsel’s services.

Reasoning

California eminent domain law requires consideration of more than time and hourly rates. Relevant factors include the novelty and difficulty of the issues, time pressures, the amount at stake, and the result achieved.

The trial court identified factors not captured by its hourly-rate calculation. Counsel handled unusually complex, fast-moving litigation that was critical to the Raiders, and the Raiders prevailed. Even one of the City’s experts testified that an hourly calculation alone would not adequately compensate counsel.

Deferred payment also supported an increase. Apart from a retainer, counsel had received no payment since the litigation began in 1980; interest on the award began only with the 1984 judgment and did not account for the earlier delay.

The court tied the increase to permissible considerations rather than treating a multiplier as mandatory. Because the trial judge was well placed to assess the services in this litigation, the appellate court found no clear abuse of discretion in the amount awarded.

Issue #2

Whether the Raiders could recover attorney fees incurred defending the fee award on appeal.

Holding

Yes. Recoverable eminent domain litigation expenses include reasonable attorney fees incurred in subsequent judicial proceedings.

Reasoning

The statute extends recoverable attorney fees beyond trial to subsequent judicial proceedings, so the Raiders were entitled to fees for this appeal.

The appellate court left the amount to the trial court because the Raiders had not supplied an appellate-hours and rates calculation, and the trial court could determine fees alongside appellate costs.