Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV11297, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11297    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Hector Linares (“Moving Defendant”)

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute concerning an automobile repair which was previously litigated in small claims court in the case styled as Melvin Robinson Jr. v. Hectors Auto Repair, LASC Case No. 21STSC04221.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) motor vehicle; (2) general negligence; (3) intentional tort; (4) products liability; (5) intentional/negligent misrepresentation; and (6) concealment.

On July 26, 2022 the Court granted Moving Defendant’s special motion to strike Moving pursuant to CCP section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP Motion”) and demurrer (the “Demurrer”).  On August 2, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees (the “Motion”).

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Moving Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.  (CCP § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).)  The reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees sought by a defendant prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.  (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 659.)  In the anti-SLAPP context, an award of fees may include not only the fees incurred with respect to the underlying claim, but also the fees incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees under CCP section 425.16.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141.) 

Moving Defendant seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,484.50, which represents: (1) 11.4 hours of work at an hourly rate of $650; and (2) filing fees in the amount of $74.50.  (See Declaration of Joseph M. Aliberti (“Aliberti Decl.”) ¶ 2.)

Since Moving Defendant prevailed on the anti-SLAPP Motion and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@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. 

  Dated this 27th day of October 2022