Pacific Systems v. Giant Skateboard Distribution
Plaintiff and appellant Pacific Systems (plaintiff) appeals from a postjudgment order denying its motion for attorney fees incurred with the Law Offices of William G. Wells (Wells) under Civil Code section 1717. In an unpublished opinion, we reversed a previous trial court order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees incurred with Wells and remanded the matter to the trial court to determine the amount of Wells’s fees, if any, to be awarded to plaintiff. (Pacific Systems v. Giant Skateboard Distribution et al. (Jun. 21, 2010, B211380) (Pacific Systems I).) Upon remand, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to set forth in its moving papers the amount of fees it was seeking, failed to timely provide any evidence of Wells’s hourly rate, time entries, billing memos, invoices, or work summaries to support any amount for attorney fees, and failed to explain how Wells could have represented plaintiff at any time after October 30, 2009, when the California State Bar ordered him to be on inactive status.
The record discloses no abuse of discretion by the trial court. We therefore affirm the order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees incurred with Wells.
Comments on Pacific Systems v. Giant Skateboard Distribution