Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCV44018, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44018    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Allegations and Background

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Angelita Antipuesto (spelled “Antipuesta” in the header of the Complaint) initiated this action on January 17, 2020, alleging nine Labor Code causes of action against Defendants/Cross-Complainants Las Brisas MHC, LLC (“Las Brisas”; sued as “Las Brisas Courtyard”), Donald Shepherd, and Does 1 through 20.

On February 3, 2021, Las Brisas and Mr. Shepherd filed a Cross-Complaint against Ms. Antipuesto, Cross-Defendant Reuben Antipuesto, and Roes 1 through 10, amending the Cross-Complaint on June 22, 2021 to allege claims of (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Common Count [Money Had and Received], (3) Unjust Enrichment, (4) Malicious Prosecution, and (5) Abuse of Process against these Cross-Defendants.

On August 30, 2021, Angelita Antipuesto made a Special Motion to Strike the fourth and fifth causes of action alleged in Las Brisas and Donald Shepherd’s First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”).

On October 5, 2021, the Court denied the anti-SLAPP motion as to the FAXC’s fourth cause of action for malicious prosecution but granted the motion as to the FAXC’s fifth cause of action for abuse of process.

Now before the Court is Angelita Antipuesto’s opposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees, seeking $12,550 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1), based on her counsel’s work on the anti-SLAPP motion and this motion.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court GRANTS 1) Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ request to take judicial notice of the declaration and ex parte application provided by Defendants/Cross-Complainants Las Brisas MHC, LLC and Donald Shepherd and 2) Plaintiff’s request to take judicial of the court’s minute order dated October 5, 2021 ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion as court records. (Evid., §§ 452.)

Motion for Attorney’s Fees: GRANTED, in Part.

Legal Standard

A prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1); Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1332.) No specific findings reflecting the court’s calculations for attorney’s fees are required; the record need only show that the attorney’s fees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1344, 1349.) The Court has broad discretion to determine the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award, which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393-94.)

The Court begins this inquiry “with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) From there, the “lodestar figure may then be adjusted [according to a multiplier enhancement] based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Ibid.) Relevant multiplier factors include “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

Analysis

I. Reasonableness of Fee

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Angelita Antipuesto seeks a fee rate of $650.00 per hour for Samvel Geshgian and $500 per hour for Samantha L. Ortiz (Ms. Antipuesto’s primary counsel in this action). (Mot., 6:14-16.) Ms. Antipuesto argues that these rates are reasonable based on declaration and prevailing market fee rates in Southern California. (Mot., 6:17-21.)

The Declaration of Samvel Geshgian provides that Mr. Geshgian received his Juris Doctorate in May of 2014 and has practiced law in California since December 2014. (Mot., Geshgian Decl., ¶ 13.) The Declaration further explains that Mr. Geshgian has “practiced exclusively in Plaintiffs’ employment, wage and hour and class action matters for most of [his] legal career beginning in December of 2014,” during which “period, [he] ha[s] mediated hundreds of employment and wage and hour cases, first chaired one jury trial and one bench trial.” (Mot., Geshgian Decl., ¶ 14.) Mr. Geshgian also declares that he was selected as a Southern California Super Lawyer Rising Star in employment litigation in 2021 and that he “currently handle[s] a caseload of over 100 actively litigated cases, for which [he] [is] responsible for all aspects of litigation.” (Mot., Geshgian Decl., ¶¶ 14, 16.) Mr. Geshgian’s stated fee rate is $650 per hour. (Mot., Geshgian Decl., ¶ 15.) His Declaration cites cases in which his fee rate of either $450 or $650 per hour was approved. (Mot., Geshgian Decl., ¶¶ 17-18.)

The Declaration of Samantha L. Ortiz provides that she graduated from Western State College of Law in 2016 and was admitted to the California State Bar in 2016. (Mot., Ortiz Decl., ¶ 3.) Ms. Ortiz explains that she has “personally mediated dozens of cases, prepared cases for trial and arbitration, and opposed and defeated at least 5 dispositive motions during [her] career.” (Mot., Ortiz Decl., ¶ 4.) She “currently handle[s] a case load of over 100 actively litigated cases, for which [she] [is] responsible for all aspects of litigation.” (Mot., Ortiz Decl., ¶ 5.) Ms. Ortiz’s stated fee rate is $550 per hour. (Mot., Ortiz Decl., ¶ 6.) Her Declaration cites cases in which her fee rates ranging from $300 to $550 per hour were approved. (Mot., Ortiz Decl., ¶¶ 6-9.)

Las Brisas and Donald Shepherd’s opposition does not dispute Ms. Antipuesto’s requested fee rates. (See Opp’n generally.)

In reply, Ms. Antipuesto reiterates her position that her attorney fee rates are reasonable. (Reply, 4:26-5:15.)

The Court, based on its experience in fee rate disputes and the briefing before the Court, finds that the requested rates are reasonable.

II. Reasonableness in Hours

Angelita Antipuesto seeks attorney’s fees for 12.5 hours expended by Mr. Geshgian in work related to the anti-SLAPP motion (11 hours) and this motion (1.5 hours), broken down as follows: 6.5 hours preparing and drafting the anti-SLAPP motion; three (3) hours replying to Las Brisas and Mr. Shepherd’s opposition thereto; 1.5 hours appearing before the Court for the anti-SLAPP hearing; one (1) hour reviewing the Court’s anti-SLAPP ruling and conferencing with Ms. Ortiz regarding the same as to inform this motion (1 hour); and 0.5 hours reviewing this motion for fees. (Mot., 6:22-27, Geshgian Decl., ¶ 10.)

Ms. Antipuesto also seeks attorney’s fees for 4.5 hours she expects Mr. Geshgian to expend in reviewing Las Brisas and Mr. Shepherd’s opposition to this motion, drafting a reply, and appearing at this hearing, for a total of 17 hours expended by Mr. Geshgian in matters relating to the anti-SLAPP motion and this motion. (Mot., 7:6-8, Geshgian Decl., ¶ 11.)

Angelita Antipuesto also seeks attorney’s fees for three (3) hours expended by Ms. Ortiz in drafting this motion, including preparation of exhibits and declarations thereto. (Mot., 7:3-5, Ortiz Decl., ¶ 2.)

In opposition, Las Brisas and Donald Shepherd argue that either (1) the results of Ms. Antipuesto’s anti-SLAPP motion were so minimal and insignificant as to warrant a full denial of this motion (Opp’n, 4:12-6:2) or (2) the Court should reduce the fees sought by Ms. Antipuesto because “California law does not entitle her to fees incurred as to her failed attempt to strike the Fourth Counter-Claim through her Anti-SLAPP motion” (Opp’n, 6:3-7:12). The opposition does not, however, provide a suggestion as to the number of hours that are appropriate for reduction. (See Opp’n generally.)

In reply, Ms. Antipuesto argues that (1) fees are mandatory based on the grant of the anti-SLAPP motion as to the FAXC’s fifth cause of action (Reply, 2:26-4:2) and (2) her fees should not be reduced based on the Court denying the anti-SLAPP motion as to the FAXC’s fourth cause of action [mistakenly arguing that it was the fifth cause of action that was denied]. (Reply, 4:3-25.)

While the Court sympathizes with Ms. Antipuesto’s position, the Court finds that fees are only merited for the work performed by Ms. Antipuesto’s counsel in prevailing against the FAXC’s fifth cause of action for abuse of process, and not for the fourth cause of action for malicious prosecution, because section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates fees for a prevailing party on an anti-SLAPP motion.

The Court thus reduces the hours sought by Ms. Antipuesto for Mr. Geshgian’s work on the anti-SLAPP motion by half—from 11 hours to 5.5 hours.

The Court otherwise finds that the hours expended by Ms. Antipuesto’s counsel on the anti-SLAPP proceedings and this motion are reasonable.

III. Lodestar Enhancements and Costs and Expenses

No multiplier enhancement or costs and expenses are sought by Angelita Antipuesto. The Court therefore does not further consider these issues.

IV. Conclusion

The Court GRANTS this motion for reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,975, comprised of (1) 7 hours reasonably spent by Mr. Geshgian comprising both time on the original anti-SLAPP motion (5.5 hours) and this motion (1.5 hours), at a rate of $650 per hour, (2) three hours reasonably spent by Ms. Ortiz on work related to this motion, at a rate of $500 per hour, and (3) an additional 4.5 hours reasonably spent or to be spent by Mr. Geshgian in work associated with this motion, at a rate of $650 per hour.

Conclusion

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Angelita Antipuesto’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $8,975.