Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 21STCV24999, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV24999 Hearing Date: August 1, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendants The Pirnia
Law Group,
Mohammed Maaz, and
Hayley Guzman.
Defendants The Pirnia Law Group, Mohammed Maaz, and Hayley
Guzman are the prevailing parties in this action adjudicated via an anti-SLAPP
motion made by Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 and
granted by this Court January 20, 2022. Defendants
now bring this opposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs seeking attorney’s
fees of $14,200 ($400 per hour times 35.5 hours) and costs in the amount of
$2,317.08 in relation to the anti-SLAPP motion, which the Court GRANTS in full.
This action involved a law firm’s allegations that two
former employees (one an attorney) and their new employer sought to and did
“steal” several of the law firm’s clients, resulting in lost profit damages to
the law firm.
Plaintiff JT Legal alleged that it hired Defendant Maaz (an
attorney) in January 2018 and Defendant Guzman in December 2019, and that, before
both resigned from JT Legal in June 2021, and acting in concert with Defendant
Pirnia Law, Maaz and Guzman stole confidential client information to solicit
clients away from JT Legal. JT Legal alleges that, because of the Defendant’s
conduct, it lost at least four clients, leading to lost profits.
On January 20, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants’
anti-SLAPP motion on the stated grounds and Judgement was entered on February
28, 2022 and Notice of Judgment was effected on March 18, 2022.
JT Legal opposed the Fees Motion on July 19, 2022, disputing
only the numbers of hours that should be considered for the purposes of this
Motion. Defendants did not file a timely
Reply.
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: As the prevailing parties in this action
via anti-SLAPP motion, The Pirnia Law
Group, Mohammed Maaz, and Hayley Guzman now move for reasonable attorney’s fees
of $14,200 ($400 per hour times 35.5 hours), no multiplier enhancement
award, and costs in the amount of $2,317.08 in relation to Defense Counsel’s
work on this action. (See Mot., 2:1-5, 4:5-11.)
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.)
Pirnia Law, Maaz,
and Guzman argue that $400 per hour is a reasonable fee rate for Troy M.
Mueller, Esq. of the Mueller Firm (Defense Counsel) based on (1) his nine
years’ experience in civil litigation, including representation of numerous
clients and work in trial settings, (2) his academic merits at Southwestern Law
School, and (3) Los Angeles Superior Court orders in two unrelated actions in
which those courts approved Mr. Mueller’s fee rate. (Mot., 3:24-4:22.) The
Declaration of Mueller supports these positions. (Mot., Mueller Decl., ¶¶ 1-4,
8-10.) Plaintiff JT Legal fails to oppose this fee rate. (See Opp’n,
1:25-3:24.) The Court thus finds that $400 per hour is a reasonable fee rate
for Mueller, as based on his number of years of experience in civil litigation
practice, as well as the Court’s experience with fee rates for attorneys of
similar experience.
Prnia Law, Maaz, and
Guzman next argue that 35.5 hours is a reasonable time for Defense Counsel to
have expended on this action because (1) Mr. Mueller was representing three
defendants against claims involving up to eighth individuals (clients), (2) Mr.
Mueller efficiently wrote the anti-SLAPP motion in a single day to the
detriment of other work, and (3) outside of the work on the anti-SLAPP motion,
the remainder of Mr. Mueller’s entries in his verified time records involved
billing of less than an hour. (Mot., 4:7-5:3.) The Declaration of Mr. Mueller
supports these positions and provides a verified copy of Defense Counsel’s time
records for work performed on this action. (Mot., Mueller Decl., ¶¶ 11-17, Ex.
4 [verified 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”].)
On Opposition,
Plaintiff JT Legal argues that the hours billed by Mr. Mueller should be
reduced based on (1) block billing, (2) the unreasonable number of hours spent
on the anti-SLAPP motion, and (3) Mr. Mueller billing for discovery outside the
scope of the anti-SLAPP Motion. (Opp’n, 2:5-24, 2:25-3:20.)
The Court finds that
the verified time records well support the number of hours billed and that no
proper grounds exist for the Court to determine that Defense Counsel’s records
are erroneous and thus not entitled to deference.
As such this Motion
is GRANTED, with no multiplier requested, entitling Defendants to a joint
recovery of $14,200 in reasonable attorney’s fees, calculated at a reasonable
rate of $400 per hour times 35.5 hours reasonable expended on this action by attorney
Troy M. Mueller.
Pirnia Law, Maaz,
and Guzman also seek $2,317.08 in costs and expenses related to (1) $1,471.45
in filing and motion fees, (2) $161.39 in jury fees, (3) $43.56 in fees for
electronic filing or service, and $640.68 for translation fees and courtesy
copies of filings to the Court. (Feb. 1, 2021 Memo of Costs, MC-010, p. 1,
MC-011, p. 4.) Plaintiff JT Legal does not
oppose these costs and expenses. (See Opp’n, 1:25-3:24.)
The Court thus
AWARDS the $2,317.08 in costs and expenses for a total recovery of $16,517.08.
Defendants The Pirnia Law Group, Mohammed Maaz, and Hayley
Guzman’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $16,517.08,
comprised of (1) $14,200 in reasonable attorney’s fees, calculated at a
reasonable rate of $400 per hour times 35.5 hours reasonable expended on this
action and (2) $2,317.08 in costs and expenses related to this action.