Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV36753, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Sylvia Tidwell’s motion for attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff Art Colony Property, LLC is granted in the reduced total amount of $61,360.00.

Defendant Sylvia Tidwell (“Tidwell”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order awarding her attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff Art Colony Property, LLC (“Art Colony”) (“Plaintiff”) in the total amount of $79,920, comprised of $61,760 for incurred in connection with her special motion to strike (“Anti-SLAPP Motion) portions of the complaint, and attorneys’ fees of $18,160 incurred in the preparation of this motion. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §425.16(c)(1).)

Defendant’s 1/26/24 evidentiary objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Errata is overruled.

Defendant’s 9/14/23 request for judicial notice of her Anti-SLAPP motion, Plaintiff’s opposition to the Anti-SLAPP motion, her reply to the Anti-SLAPP motion, and the 9/5/23 Minute Order on submitted matter is denied, as the Court does not need to take judicial notice of filings in this case’s docket.

On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed its operative complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendant Tidwell and Non-Moving Defendant Santa Fe Art Colony Tenant Association (“Tenant Association”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (3) violation of Business & Professions Code §§17200 et seq. On September 5, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion, striking the 2nd and 4th causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (9/5/23 Minute Order.)

On September 14, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees. On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed its opposition. On January 23, 2024, Defendant filed her 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, Defendant was the prevailing party in the Anti-SLAPP Motion. (See 9/5/23 Minute Order.) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is proper and she 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.)

Defendant’s Counsel declares his hourly rate in this case is $800 per hour. (Decl. of Anapol ¶7, Exh. 2.) The Court determines based on its experience that Defendant’s Counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable in his community of practice.

An anti-SLAPP motion is complex in nature and requires the submission of declarations and evidence akin to a motion for summary judgment or a preliminary injunction. Defendant’s counsel declares he handled every aspect of this case, drafted all of the pleadings filed in this action, and attended all of the hearings. (Decl. of Anapol ¶5.) Defendant’s efforts resulted in the dismissal of two of the three causes of action alleged against her. Accordingly, Defendant’s requested attorneys’ fees are reasonable.

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, the billing statement of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred on the motion and the declarations by counsel demonstrate the reasonableness of the time spent on this case. (See Decl. of Anapol ¶7, Exh. 2.) However, Defendant’s billing statement contains block billing and vague time entries. Further, Defendant’s counsel seeks compensation for billing entries that are unrelated to the Anti-SLAPP Motion. Accordingly, the Court reduces the total attorneys’ fees and costs sought on this motion, eliminating block billing, vague, and unrelated entries to $48,000.00.

With regards to the instant motion for attorneys’ fees, Defendant’s counsel requests attorneys’ fees for 16.7 hours, as well as 7.5 hours to review of the opposition and prepare a reply, and Defendant’s counsel anticipates 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing for the instant motion. (Supp.-Decl. of Anapol ¶9.) The Court finds the requested 24 hours on the instant motion to be excessive, reduces the requested number of hours by 8 hours, and calculates the fees on the instant motion as follows: 16.7 x $800/hour = $13,360.00 in attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, the Court calculates the total reduced attorneys’ fees to be $61,360.00.

Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in the reduced total amount of $61,360.00.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court