Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22CHCV00451, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV00451    Hearing Date: September 25, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Motion Filed: 8/23/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff GH-Balboa 1998 L.P. (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Roshanak Nasiri, an individual dba Granada Hills Market, in pro per (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: A determination that Plaintiff is the prevailing party as to Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike, and as such, entitled to recover attorney fees in the amount of  $29,355.00, and costs in the amount of $249.86.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is awarded $29,604.86 in attorney fees as the prevailing party on Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, the owner of certain real property located at 11116 Balboa Blvd., Granada Hills, CA 91344, brings this unlawful detainer action against Defendant, the tenant, to recover possession of the property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s lease was intended to expire on 6/30/20 without renewal, of which Plaintiff was given notice. (Compl. ¶¶ 17b, 17d.) However, Defendant remained in possession of the premises under City and County eviction moratoria created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, without paying rent or common area maintenance fees. (Id. at ¶¶ 17b., 17e.) On 5/13/22, after the County moratorium was lifted, Plaintiff served a 30-day notice to quit on Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 17c.) Nevertheless, Defendant remained in possession of the property. (Id. at ¶ 3a.)

On 6/20/22, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant, alleging a sole cause of action for unlawful detainer, and requesting forfeiture of the lease agreement, damages, and reasonable attorney fees. On 7/12/22, Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons, which the Court denied on 9/22/22. On 9/27/22, Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint, which the Court denied on 10/21/22.

On 12/22/22, the Court denied Defendant’s special anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s entire complaint. On 1/23/23, Defendant filed an Appeal thereof. On 7/11/24, the Court of Appeal dismissed Defendant’s appeal pursuant to her 7/1/24 request for dismissal.

On 8/23/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

An award of attorney fees is proper when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1032, subd. (b); 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Here, if the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).)

Here, the Court previously found that Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike was “frivolous, and Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees” in the amount of $1,000. (12/22/22 Min. Order, p. 6.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the instant motion is authorized by statute.

1.      Attorney Fees Incurred

In determining a reasonable fee award, the Court begins with the lodestar method of calculation, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.¿(Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 744; PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095–1096.) Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover $29,355.00 in attorney fees, encompassing 61.80 hours of its attorneys’ time spent with respect to Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion and the appeal thereof. (Ex. 5 to Decl. of Jeffrey B. Endler.)

The Court notes that Defendant has failed to file any opposition to the instant motion, and therefore does not challenge the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s attorney fees incurred. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to recover $29,355.00 in reasonable attorney fees.

2.      Costs Incurred

Plaintiff asserts that it incurred costs and expenses totaling $249.86, accounting for electronic filing fees in connection with Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion and the appeal thereof. (Ex. 5 to Decl. of Jeffrey B. Endler.) The Court again notes that Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motion and challenge the purported costs incurred by Plaintiff in this action. 

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is awarded $29,604.86 in attorney fees.