Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00012782-CU-DF-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Defamation Motion Hearing (UD) 37-2023-00012782-CU-DF-CTL ROSHELL VS GREER STEPHAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 10/12/2023

Defendant Grimm Vranjes Greer Stephan & Bridgman LLP's unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED IN PART.

On August 25, 2023, the Court granted Defendant's unopposed special motion to strike. The ruling was dispositive of the First Amended Complaint. (ROA 42 – Minute Order dated Aug. 25, 2023.) On August 29, 2023, the Court entered judgment with attorney fees and costs to be determined. (ROA 47.) Defendant served notice of the judgment. (ROA 48.) Defendant now seeks attorney fees in the amount of $16,704 under C.C.P. section 425.16(c). Defendant duly served the motion and Plaintiff did not oppose. The Court may deem a lack of opposition to be a concession that a motion is meritorious. (San Diego County Local Rule 2.1.19(B).) Notwithstanding, Defendant prevailed on the motion and is entitled to fees. (C.C.P., § 425.16(c)(1) [a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover attorney fees and costs]; Maleti v. Wickers (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 232, as modified on denial of reh'g (Sept. 9, 2022), rev. denied (Nov. 22, 2022).) The next question is the amount of fees to award, which requires a lodestar calculation. (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 432 (569 East County).) Here, after considering the Court's own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, the experience, skill and reputation of the attorney requesting fees and the difficulty or complexity of the litigation (id., at p. 436-37), Defendant's attorney's hourly rates are reasonable.

However, a reduction is required on the number of hours claimed. A fee award under the anti-SLAPP statute may not include matters unrelated to the anti-SLAPP motion. (569 East County, at p. 433.) And here, Defendant includes fees for time spent drafting a demurrer to Plaintiff's original complaint that was later amended. (Declaration of Ian Friedman, at ¶ 10.) In addition, Defendant also references drafting a reply on the motion, but none is on file, and anticipating time to file a reply on this motion, but again, none is on file (other than a notice of non-opposition.) Defendant did not itemize time spent on each task, nor identify which tasks were done by the partner versus the law clerk, so the Court will omit the law clerk's hours and reduce the total number of partner hours (33.6) by 8 hours for time spent on the demurrer and two replies that Defendant did not file.

Thus, the Court will award $11,520 [$450 hourly rate x 25.6 hours].

Concluding Orders Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3065291  43 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ROSHELL VS GREER STEPHAN [IMAGED]  37-2023-00012782-CU-DF-CTL For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Quarteize Roshell, Sr. is ordered to pay Defendant Grimm Vranjes Greer Stephan & Bridgman LLP attorney fees in the amount of $11,250, by April 5, 2024.

Defendant Grimm Vranjes Greer Stephan & Bridgman LLP is ordered to serve written notice of this ruling by March 5, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3065291  43