Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 19STCV37225, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV37225 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: 72
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE § 425.16(c)
Date: 9/20/22
(8:30 AM)
Case: MAP Group, LLC et al. v.
Terrence Howard et al. (21STCV37225)
Defendants Terrence Howard, Mira Howard, and Universal
Bridges, Inc.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 425.16 is CONTINUED.
On April 1, 2022, the Court granted in part defendants Terrence
Howard, Mira Howard, and Universal Bridges, Inc.’s Special Motion to Strike the
Complaint. Even though defendants were partially successful, they are entitled
to an award of attorney fees and costs. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service,
Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 340 [“[A] party who partially prevails on
an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the
results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any
practical benefit from bringing the motion”].)
Here, the results of the motion were significant. The Court
struck allegations regarding the cease-and-desist letters that were served on
producers and distributors of the subject film. (4/1/22 Minute Order at 5, 7-8.) The
letters formed the sole basis for the third through sixth causes of action for
interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage. The
letters also formed the basis, at least in part, for the contract-based
first and second causes of action, the fraud-based seventh and eighth causes of
action, and the ninth cause of action for declaratory relief. “The
anti-SLAPP procedures are designed to shield a defendant's constitutionally
protected conduct from the undue burden of frivolous litigation.” (Baral v.
Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 393.) As a result of the striking of the
allegations pertaining to the cease-and-desist letters, defendants do not have
to conduct discovery on the cease-and-desist letters.
Accordingly, the Court finds that
defendants are entitled to recover the fees and costs incurred in moving to
strike the Complaint.
Plaintiffs MAP Group, LLC; MAP Production Services, LLC;
Digital Ignition Entertainment, LLC; and RJ Mitte contend that any award of
fees and costs to defendant should be offset by any award that the Court may
award to plaintiffs for defendants’ purportedly frivolous motion. However,
plaintiffs never filed any motion seeking fees. Further, while plaintiffs asked
for fees in their opposition to defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion (Opp. at
15:2-22), that motion was granted in part, and, as discussed above, was a
significant result for defendants. Accordingly, the motion was not “frivolous
or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay,” as set forth in CCP § 425.16(c)(1).
(See Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193
Cal.App.4th 435, 450 [“Frivolous in this context [in CCP § 425.16(c)(1)] means
that any reasonable attorney would agree the motion was totally devoid of
merit”].) Plaintiffs do not cite any law indicating that they are entitled to
an offset of fees if they are successful in obtaining a partial denial.
Plaintiffs’ request for an offset of fees is therefore without merit.
Nonetheless, defendants did not
provide any time sheets evidencing the over $200,000 in fees they request in
the instant motion. “[A]s the parties seeking fees and costs, defendants
‘bear[] the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the
appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.’ [Citation.] To that end, the court
may require defendants to produce records sufficient to provide ‘“a proper
basis for determining how much time was spent on particular claims.’” (ComputerXpress,
Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1020.)
While detailed time records are not necessarily required to
support a fee request, it is matter of court discretion. (See Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin
(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 698, internal quotations omitted [“It is well
established that California courts do not require detailed time records, and
trial courts have discretion to award fees based on declarations of counsel
describing the work they have done and the court's own view of the number of
hours reasonably spent”].) Here, the Court exercises its discretion to require
detailed time records because “contemporaneous time records are the best
evidence of lawyers’ hourly work. They are not indispensable, but they eclipse
other proofs.” (Taylor v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th
205, 207.)
Defendants’ charts regarding their
fee claim are not sufficient. For example, counsel Michael Saltz claims 15.3
hours between February 2022 and March 2022 for “[r]esponding to numerous
conflicting declarations filed by Plaintiffs.” (Saltz Decl. at 4:10-11.)
Counsel Elana Levine claims 14.0 hours for the same task. (Levine Decl. at
3:15-16.) However, plaintiffs filed their opposition papers on March 16, 2022.
Therefore, it is unclear how or even whether the fees incurred in February 2022
were related to the anti-SLAPP motion.
Defense counsel also seeks a total
of 48.5 hours for “[r]eviewing the extensive record” between December 2021 and
March 2022. (Saltz Decl. at 4:11-12 [24.5 hours]; Levine Decl. at 3:16-17 [24
hours].) That description is so vague as to deprive the Court of any meaningful
ability to evaluate whether any of the fees for such review is related to the
anti-SLAPP motion.
Further, defendants are required to
provide an itemization of the costs that they seek so the Court can determine
whether the costs are related to the anti-SLAPP motion. (Saltz Decl. at 5:3-7.)
With respect to service of process fees, the Court notes that these costs are
not recoverable because they are not related to the anti-SLAPP motion. “A fee
award under the anti-SLAPP statute may not include matters unrelated to the
anti-SLAPP motion, such as ‘attacking service of process, preparing and
revising an answer to the complaint, [or] summary judgment research.’
[Citation.]” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump,
Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 433.)
Citing Los Angeles County Bd. of
Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, defendants maintain
that they are not obligated to provide detailed time records because they are
protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product
doctrine. Defendants are incorrect. “When a legal matter remains pending and
active, the privilege encompasses everything in an invoice, including the
amount of aggregate fees.” (Los Angeles County Bd., 2 Cal.5th at 297.)
However, the anti-SLAPP motion has been resolved. It is no longer pending.
Accordingly, to the extent that the detailed time records pertain to the
anti-SLAPP motion, they are not protected by any privilege because “[w]hile
invoices may convey some very general information about the process through
which a client obtains legal advice, their purpose is to ensure proper payment
for services rendered, not to seek or deliver the attorney's legal advice or
representation.” (Id. at 295.)
Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to November 8, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., in Department 72 (Stanley Mosk Courthouse). No later than sixteen (16) court days prior to the continued hearing date, defendants shall file and serve authenticated copies of detailed time and cost records supporting their fees and costs claim. To the extent that the records reflect either pending legal matters or otherwise do not pertain to the anti-SLAPP motion, defendants may redact the description in the task. No later than nine (9) court days prior to the continued hearing date, plaintiffs may file a supplemental opposition with respect to the billing entries reflected in the records, which shall be limited to five (5) pages. No later than five (5) court days prior to the continued hearing date, defendants may file a response to plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition, limited to five (5) pages.