Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV15728, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

Defendant Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s motion for attorneys’ fees against pro per Plaintiff Husam Asi is granted in the reduced total amount of $322,354.90.

Defendant Hollywood Foreign Press Association (“HFPA”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order awarding it attorneys’ fees against pro per Plaintiff Husam Asi (“Asi”) (“Plaintiff”) in the total amount of $460,507.00 for fees incurred from May 18, 2022, to the present in connection with its successful special motion to strike (“anti-SLAPP Motion”) and to prepare this motion for award of mandatory attorneys’ fees. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §425.16(c).) HFPA moves on the basis it is the “prevailing defendant” under C.C.P. §425.16(c). On June 14, 2023, this Court issued an order granting in part the HFPA’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s 8th cause of action to the extent it was based on protected activity. On December 27, 2023, remittitur issued following the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2023 opinion instructing the Court to strike Plaintiff’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th causes of action to the extent they are based on the HFPA’s protected activity, and granting the HFPA its costs of appeal as the prevailing party. (12/27/23 Remittitur; 10/13/23 Opinion at pg. 33.)

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against HFPA and Non-Moving Defendants Greg Goeckner (“Goeckner”) and James Lee (“Lee”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging fourteen causes of action: (1) breach of contract [alleged against HFPA]; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing [alleged against HFPA]; (3) tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing [alleged against HFPA]; (4) tortious interference with contractual relations [alleged against HFPA]; (5) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage [alleged against HFPA]; (6) violation of Business & Professions Code §§1700 et seq. [alleged against HFPA]; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress [alleged against HFPA]; (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress [alleged against HFPA]; (9) violation of the California Right of Fair Procedure [alleged against HFPA]; (10) constructive/retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy; (11) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA (hostile work environment); (12) harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and/or color in violation of FEHA; (13) violation of FEHA- failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and (14) retaliation for engaging in protected activity.

On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument on the HFPA’s anti-SLAPP Motion as to the nine causes of action alleged against it. On December 9, 2022, following the hearing, the Court granted the HFPA’s anti-SLAPP Motion as to Plaintiff’s 8th cause of action, but denied it with respect to the 1st-7th and 9th causes of action, finding that Plaintiff had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on those claims.

On January 25, 2023, the HFPA timely appealed. Following oral argument on October 9, 2023, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion on October 13, 2023 (“Appellate Opinion”) reversing the Trial Court Order and remanding with instructions to strike Plaintiff’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th causes of action to the extent they are based on the HFPA’s Press Releases. (12/27/23 Remittitur, pg. 33.) The Court of Appeal affirmed, on different grounds, the Trial Court Order solely with respect to Plaintiff’s 9th cause of action, concluding that it did not arise out of the HFPA’s Press Releases. (12/27/23 Remittitur, pgs. 15-16.)

On February 5, 2024, HFPA filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees. On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed his opposition. On May 30, 2024, HFPA filed its reply.

C.C.P. §425.16(c)(1) provides, in part, “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.” California law makes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing anti-SLAPP defendant mandatory. (See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131 [“[u]nder Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, subdivision (c), any SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney’s fees.”].) Here, HFPA was the prevailing party in the Anti-SLAPP Motion. (See 12/27/23 Remittitur, pg. 1; CRC, Rule 8.278(a)(1) [“party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case . . . is entitled to costs on appeal”].) Accordingly, HFPA’s motion for attorneys’ fees is proper and it is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.

The California Supreme Court has determined the lodestar method is the proper mechanism to calculate attorneys’ fees under C.C.P. §425.16(c). (See Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at pg. 1136.) To calculate a lodestar amount, the Court must first determine the reasonableness of the hourly rates sought by Defendant’s counsel. The “reasonable hourly rate” applicable under the lodestar method is the rate “prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.” (Id. at pg. 1096.)

HFPA’s Counsel declares the following hourly rates charged by Latham & Watkins attorneys on this matter: (1) Robert J. Ellison (2022- $1,265/hour; 2023- $1,360/hour; 2024- $1,495/hour); (2) Chandler S. Howell (2022- $990/hour; 2023- $1,140/hour; 2024- $1,275/hour); and (3) Alexa A. Nakamura (2022- $655/hour; 2023- $830/hour; 2024- $1,030/hour). (Decl. of Ellison ¶¶3-6.) The Court determines based on its experience that HFPA’s Counsel’s hourly rates are not reasonable in their community of practice. HFPA’s counsel declares that the fees sought represent an approximate $100,000 voluntary reduction, which is still hard to believe. (Decl. of Ellison ¶16.)

Plaintiff’s arguments that HFPA’s Counsel’s fees are excessive are well taken. While HFPA’s counsel was successful in trimming down Plaintiff’s allegations against HFPA, evidenced by the Court of Appeal overturning the Trial Court Order on seven of the eight causes of action in the anti-SLAPP motion, the requested fees exceeding $1,000/hour, particularly for associates with less than a decade of practice, is excessive.

Therefore, the Court will impose an overall reduction in the fees requested below.

The verified time entries of the attorneys are entitled to a presumption of credibility, which extends to an attorney’s professional judgment as to whether time spent was reasonably necessary to the litigation. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396 [“We think the verified time statements of the attorney as officers of the court are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.”].) “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.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 698-699.)

Here, HFPA’s counsel does not submit a billing statement of its fees and costs, rather, HFPA’s counsel provides a chronological, month-by-month summary of the fees and specific tasks undertaken by HFPA’s counsel. HFPA’s counsel’s month-by-month summary appears unnecessary; a detailed, itemized billing statement would have sufficed. (See Decl. of Ellison ¶¶17-34.) HFPA’s counsel declares Latham & Watkins expended a total of 505.7 hours ($460,507.00): (1) 123.8 hours ($101,246.50) to draft the anti-SLAPP Motion; (2) 43.5 hours ($36,996.00) to oppose Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain discovery ahead of the hearing on the anti-SLAPP Motion; (3) 67.6 hours ($59,552.00) to prepare HFPA’s reply papers, draft evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his opposition, prepare its opposition to Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion, and prepare for the hearing; (4) 215.5 hours ($205,680.00) appealing the Court’s denial of the HFPA’s anti-SLAPP Motion on eight of Plaintiff’s causes of action; and (5) 35.3 hours ($35,217.00) to prepare the instant motion. (Decl. of Ellison ¶¶16, 35.) HFPA’s counsel also requests twenty anticipated hours ($21,815.00) in connection with preparing a reply brief and appearing at the hearing. (Decl. of Ellison ¶¶34-35.)

Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to HFPA’s motion are unavailing because his objections to HFPA’s request for fees do not point to the specific items challenged with sufficient arguments and citations to the evidence; general arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice. (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)

However, the Court is disinclined to grant an additional twenty hours to draft a reply on the instant motion, particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s arguments were not particularized, and addresses issues extraneous to an analysis to determine if the attorneys’ fees requested are reasonable. Further, 67.6 hours to oppose and draft evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion, including Plaintiff’s ex parte application, also appears excessive. HFPA’s summary of its month-by-month fees has a similar effect of block billing—the Court is unable to discern whether HFPA’s counsel has padded the hours requested.

Accordingly, the Court reduces HFPA’s requested hours by 30% of the requested total, or $138,152.10, granting HFPA’s requested hours in the reduced total of $322,354.90.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court