Does a trial court have to reduce the hours for which it awarded fees due to the fact that there were numerous arguments made by multiple parties represented by multiple attorneys?

That the trial court did not expressly state it was reducing the hours for which it awarded fees due to the fact that there were numerous arguments made by multiple sets of defendants is not evidence that the court did not apply the proper legal analysis. The court was not required to issue a statement of decision with specific findings, and "'"[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown."'" (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1140; see also Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1244 ["It is the trial court's role to examine the evidence and we presume the trial court performed its duty"].) In any event, plaintiffs' assertion that fees should not be awarded for hours expended on arguments when multiple defendants raised substantially similar arguments is not supported by law or logic. Plaintiffs cite to no case law, and we have found none, that holds a trial court is required to reduce an attorney fee award to account for arguments made by multiple parties represented by separate attorneys. Moreover, while some of the arguments made by the defendants may have been "duplicative," the work done by the attorneys for each set of defendants was not necessarily unreasonable. The attorneys for each set of defendants owed a duty to their clients, and to the court, to conduct their own analysis of the issues to ensure that the issues they raised had a basis in law and the facts.