Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20SMCV00130, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00130    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Aimco Venezia LLC v. Huesca et al., Case No. 20SMCV00130

Hearing Date March 29, 2023

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff/cross-defendant Aimco Venezia prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion against the third amended cross-complaint (TACC) filed by defendants Luske and Huesca. Defendants did not oppose the anti-SLAPP motion. Aimco moves for attorney’s fees.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. (c)(1), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred bringing the motion. The fee award is mandatory. Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131.

Because Aimco prevailed on its anti-SLAPP motion, a fee award is mandatory. Cross-complainants argue fees should not be awarded because the TACC was not frivolous or brought in bad faith. This is immaterial, since prevailing party fees are mandatory after a successful anti-SLAPP motion.

However, the fees requested are excessive. The anti-SLAPP motion was only eight pages long and dealt with a single, unambiguous question of law: whether filing a lawsuit constitutes “litigation activity.” This motion is similarly straightforward.

Attorney Davidson requests 6.4 hours at $495/hour for the anti-SLAPP motion and 3.7 hours for this fees motion. Attorney Zelener spent 8.7 hours on the anti-SLAPP motion and 2.5 hours on the instant motion, at $415/hour. Plaintiff seeks 15.1 hours for the motion and 6.2 hours for this motion. Both are excessive given the uncomplicated nature of the motions.

The court will award 3 hours for Davidson (3x495=1,485) and 4 hours for Zelener (4x415=1,660) for the anti-SLAPP motion, and 1 hour for Davidson time (1x495=495) and 2 hours for Zelener time (2x415=830) for the fee motion.

The court awards $4,470 in total fees, payable jointly and severally.