Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 20STCV31030, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This is an action arising from the allegedly defamatory statements made by Defendants Amy Huang (“Huang”) and Lauren Hyun between March 2019 and June 2020, accusing Plaintiff Joseph Choi (“Choi”) of sexual assault. On April 6, 2019, Plaintiff was appointed as Los Angeles City Manager of the Asian Creative Network Los Angles (“ACN LA”) but was asked to voluntarily resign from his role in June of 2020, after Defendant Huang began circulating the allegedly defamatory statements about him. Then, on June 4, 2020, Defendant Huang published a post on Twitter, stating Plaintiff had sexually assaulted her on February 19, 2019. Plaintiff alleges such statements were false and have injured his reputation. On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) defamation—libel per se; (2) defamation—slander per se (Cal. Civ. Code §46(3)); and (3) false light.

On April 16, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion as to the entirety of the Complaint. As the prevailing party on her anti-SLAPP motion, Defendant seeks $23,025 in attorneys’ fees, representing 30.7 hours (which does include the time spent drafting the instant fee Motion) at $750 per hour. (Gebelin Decl. ¶ 19.) Defendant also seeks $1,293.50 in costs in connection with the appeal from the Anti-SLAPP Order. (Gebelin Decl. ¶ 21.) Lastly, at the time of drafting the instant motion for attorneys’ fees (the “Motion”), Defendant estimated spending 4 hours ($3,000) in preparing, and another 3 hours ($2,250) reviewing any opposition, filing a reply, and attending the hearing on the Motion.

As the prevailing party on her anti-SLAPP motion, Defendant is indeed entitled to her attorney’s fees. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c).) Moreover, defense counsel’s hourly rate of

$750 per hour is high but reasonable considering Gebelin’s experience and qualifications. The number of hours expended—30.7 hours—is very reasonable for having defended an anti-SLAPP Order on appeal. Defendant’s request is in line with other fee awards this Court has given to prevailing defendants on defending an anti-SLAPP motion.

However, in light of the fact Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion and Defendant did not have to subsequently review an opposition or file a reply, the Court finds it appropriate to subtract the anticipated 2 hours of work ($1,500) from Defendant’s estimated total ($29,568.50)..

Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion and awards Defendant $28,068 in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party on her anti-SLAPP motion.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court