Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: SC126806, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC126806    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Jane Doe et al. v. Curtis Olson et al., Case No. SC126806

Hearing Date April 19, 2023

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees (supplemental briefing)

Plaintiff alleges sexual assault and battery. Defendant cross-complained, alleging plaintiff breached a prior non-disparagement agreement. This court granted plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motion. Defendant appealed; the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s order on the anti-SLAPP motion. Doe seeks attorney’s fees for prevailing on the anti-SLAPP motion and subsequent appeals, via two separate motions. The first motion seeks $231,606.25 for work by Martinez Law Group in the trial and appellate courts. The second seeks $750,000 for Sidley Austin and Bryan Cave’s work before the Supreme Court.

On January 25, 2023, the court heard plaintiffs’ motions for attorney’s fees. The motions were continued to permit Doe to present additional evidence in support of the alleged tasks performed and fees claimed by her attorneys. Sidley and Bryan Cave withdrew their requests for fees. See notice of withdrawal 2/8/2023. Martinez filed a supplemental declaration in support of her fee request, which defendant opposes.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §425.16(c) a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including appellate attorney’s fees. Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 489.

If a fee request is excessive, a court has broad jurisdiction to adjust it downward or to deny it altogether. Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321-1322. Elements that undermine a fee request’s reasonableness include, but are not limited to, seeking fees for matters other than the motion at issue, vague block-billing, excessive time spent on tasks, and overstaffing. Id. 1320, 1325-1329. 

Martinez’s supplemental declaration addresses each of the issues the court identified in its initial ruling, adding specifics to vague entries and clarifying apparently double-billed entries. The court will not grant Martinez’s request for more fees than were requested in the initial motion. Martinez is granted $231,606.25 as requested in the initial motion.

The court finds Aaronoff’s declaration adequately justified his fee request for $74,750.00.

The court was informed on 4/18/23 that the motion was settled as to Keiter, so the motion is moot as to him.

GRANTED pursuant to the above conditions.