Plaintiff Case Analysis

928 Words4 Pages
Plaintiff once again argues that it was the prevailing party and that an award of attorney fees and expenses to defendants should, therefore, be denied. Plaintiff acknowledges that it bases its argument on the same authorities used to support its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs. Because the authorities and argument on this point are set forth in Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, the argument will not be repeated here. Defendants simply add the observation that in the context of Plaintiff’s opposition to an award of attorney fees and costs, Plaintiff uses a verbal sleight-of-hand to further muddy the record. Plaintiff incorrectly…show more content…
He also ignores that the entry of 1.8 hours involves a telephone conference with the client. Preparing an answer in this case is not simply a matter of checking boxes. Which allegations to admit, and which to deny, need to be carefully analyzed. Preparation of the answer also involves researching available affirmative defenses, including the one which was actually presented at trial, and the potential of filing a response other than an answer to a complaint. Plaintiff’s objection also ignores the fact that there was another action pending on this case, which required additional tactical…show more content…
The argument that “defendant turned the case into a spectacle,” ignores the reality that a well-financed commercial landlord through everything it had at its tenant, who had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars improving the landlord’s property. Plaintiff chose the procedural forum, forcing defendants to fight for their economic survival. Plaintiffs brought two sets of lawyers to virtually every hearing and advanced every conceivable argument in support of its ill-fated unlawful detainer action. Defendants did not choose this fight, and did everything they could to avoid it. The expenditure of $112,364.79 in defense of defendants’ livelihood was reasonable under the circumstances, and should be award in

More about Plaintiff Case Analysis

Open Document