Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 21STCV21924, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV21924 Hearing Date: September 7, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Christian
Stephen Molnar.
Plaintiff Jasbir Singh brought this action against Defendant
Christian Stephen Molnar—Singh’s former lawyer—alleging Malpractice and Fraud, among
others.
Molnar thereafter brought a Special Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (the
anti-SLAPP statute), which the Court Granted on January 20, 2022. Molnar now requests Attorney’s Fees and Costs in
full for a total recovery of $33,231.50, comprised of $32,501.00 in reasonable
attorney’s fees and $730.50 in reasonable costs and expenses for the work of
Defense Counsel in this action.
Attorney-Client Relationship
Defendant attorney Christian Molnar represented Plaintiff
Jasbir Singh between 2006 and 2013. In one matter, Molnar litigated action
against several debtors who failed to pay Singh on a promissory note (the
“Chima Action”).
In May 2009, Molnar obtained a $44,000 award plus
pre-judgment interest for Singh. The Judgment on Court’s judgment confirming
these damages contained space for, but left blank, provisions for attorney’s
fees and costs. Following trial, Molnar did not file a motion for attorney’s
fees on the grounds that Singh had requested that Molnar inflate Molnar’s
invoice amounts to show greater legal fees than actually incurred. Two years
later in 2011, Molnar filed an Application of Foreign Judgment and Affidavit in
the Nevada courts to enforce the Chima Action judgment. The defendants in the
Chima Action eventually relocated to the State of Nevada. The following year,
in February 2012, the Foreign Judgment was recorded, and Defendant emailed
Plaintiff a copy the on March 5, 2012. Allegedly unbeknownst to Plaintiff,
Molnar had recorded the Foreign Judgment for $71,777.57, not $44,000. The
difference between this sum and the $44,000 award Plaintiff obtained and now
“included” attorney’s fees and costs that were represented by Molnar as part of
the underlying judgment in the Chima Action.
The following year, on March 18, 2013, Singh fired Molnar.
First Malpractice Action
One year later, on April 1, 2014, Singh sued Molnar for
malpractice (“First Malpractice Case”) based on Molnar’s work in several
matters, including the Chima Action (LASC BC519223).
Molnar cross-claimed against Singh for attorney’s fees, to
which Singh responded by raising malpractice affirmative defenses, arguing part
that Molnar committed malpractice by failing to obtain the above-mentioned
attorney’s fees in the 2009 Chima Action.
In the meantime, Defendants in the Chima Action reached out
to Molnar regarding resolution of the Foreign Judgment, to which Molnar’s
counsel at the time responded by providing contact information for Singh’s then
counsel. In February 2017, the Foreign Judgment in the Chima Action was renewed
in Nevada by Plaintiff’s then counsel. After failed attempts to settle and
satisfy the Foreign Judgment, which Singh rejected, in March 2020, the
Defendants in the Chima Action moved to enforce the judgment by petitioning
Nevada courts to declare a judgment amount and allow satisfaction of payment. Singh
opposed this motion, and after briefs and surresponses were filed in the
matter, the Nevada trial court found that it could not enforce the Foreign
Judgment because its underlying California judgment for $44,000 did not support
the Foreign Judgment filed in Nevada for $71,777.57. More specifically, the
Nevada Court held that it could not enforce the Foreign Judgment for lack of
specificity where “[t]he Foreign Judgment […] showed a judgement of $44,000
with no amounts for attorney s fees, and total costs” and “a reference to
pre-judgement interest with no amount in the judgment.” The Chima Action
defendants then moved for relief from “the judgment.” The Nevada Court denied
that request on September 30, 2020, but nevertheless dismissed the Foreign
Judgment in Nevada for failure to state a sum certain, with other issues to be
addressed in California courts.
The First Malpractice Case was heard in a bifurcated trial
that ended on March 22, 2019, with the Court find that Molnar was Not Liable
for malpractice in the Chima Action for failing to request attorney’s fees in
the BC519223 action. Singh appealed the bifurcated trial’s findings, (see
B297036 and B303366), which were Denied, with remittitur being issued on July
1, 2021.
Second Malpractice Action
On June 10, 2021, Singh again sued Molnar based on the above
facts and for engaging in conduct leading to the dismissal of the Foreign
Judgment in Nevada (LASC 21STCV21924 or “Second Malpractice Action”). Singh
amended his complaint on November 15, 2021, alleging: (1) Breach of Contract,
(2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (3) Indemnification, (4) Professional Negligence
[Malpractice], and (5) Fraud.
Also on November 15, 2021, Molnar brought a Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (the
anti-SLAPP statute) on the grounds that Singh was suing Molnar in the Second
Malpractice Action for engaging in constitutionally protected activity within
the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute and that Singh could not show even
minimal merit to his claims for various reasons.
The Court Granted Molnar’s anti-SLAPP Motion on January 20,
2022, finding that “because the causes of action in the First Amended Complaint
involve conduct that is protected activity for the purposes of anti-SLAPP and
because Singh cannot show even minimal merit to his probability of succeeding
on the merits of his claims because, inter alia, res judicata precludes,
fatally estops and bars all five causes of action.”
Molnar then brought the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees
and Costs on March 18, 2022, seeking “to recover $32,501.00 in reasonable
attorney[’]s fees and litigation costs in the amount of $730.50 incurred in
defense of this action.”
Singh filed a Notice of Appeal for “Judgment after an order
granting a Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16” on March 25,
2022. On May 3, 2022, the Superior Court noticed Singh that his appeal had been
placed in default and would be referred to the Court of Appeal for dismissal if
he failed to correct the defects in the appeal. On June 8, 2022, the Second
District Court of Appeal issued a Notice of Non-Compliance of Default on
Appeal.
To date, Singh has failed to file an Opposition to the
Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
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.)
Analysis: Defendant Molnar brings this unopposed
Motion seeking “that the Court award him $32,501.00 in reasonable attorney[’]s
fees[, no multiplier,] and litigation costs in the amount of $730.50.” (Mot.,
9:18-19.)
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.)
Defendant Molnar argues that an hourly rate of $400.00 per
hour for Defense Counsel Jeff C. Hsu and an hourly rate of $295 per hour for
Defense Counsel Patrick Gillespie is reasonable (Mot., 6:22-7:4), and the Court
agrees based on the subject matter of this action, Defense Counsel’s respective
number of years of practice, and Defense Counsel’s respective litigation
experience (Mot., Hsu Decl., ¶ 10 [detailing Mr. Hsu’s 16 years of experience
practicing law in professional liability defense and malpractice actions before
state, federal, and appellate court and other information], ¶ 17 [detailing Mr.
Gillespie’s 8 years of experience practicing law in actions involving
anti-SLAPP matters]).
Defendant Molnar argues that Defense Counsel reasonably
expended 83.3 hours in this matter, (Mot., 6:22-7:4), which the Court
determines is reasonable based on the verified time records provided by
Defendant Molnar (Mot., Hsu Decl., Exs. 1-5 [verified time records]). (See Horsford
v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 397
[“trial court abused its discretion in rejecting wholesale counsels’ verified
time records” where “verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of
the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the
records are erroneous”].)
Defendant does not seek a multiplier enhancement award. (See
Mot., 3:2-9:19.)
The Court thus AWARDS Defendant Molnar reasonable attorney’s
fees of $32,501.00.
Defendant Molnar also seeks $730.50 in costs and expenses,
comprised of $209 in filing and motion fees and $521.50 in a “First Appearance
Fee” (Mot., Hsu Decl., Ex. 6 [Memorandum of Costs]; Mar. 18, 2022 Memorandum of
Costs, MC-010, p. 1, MC-011, p. 3), which the Court AWARDS in full.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant Christian Stephen
Molnar’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the amount of $33,231.50,
comprised of $32,501.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees and $730.50 in reasonable
costs and expenses.
Defendant Christian Stephen Molnar’s Motion for Attorney’s
Fees and Costs is GRANTED in full for a total of recovery of $33,231.50,
comprised of $32,501.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees and $730.50 in reasonable
costs and expenses for the work of Defense Counsel in this action.