Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 22STCV27147 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Glaser Property Management Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) violation of Civil Code sections 51 and 52; (2) violation of Civil Code section 46; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (6) malicious prosecution.

On September 28, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a special motion to strike the malicious prosecution cause of action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP Motion”), which the Court granted on November 22, 2022.^{^[1]} On January 5, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs (the “Motion”) on the grounds that it is entitled to recover the attorney’s fees and costs that it incurred in connection to the anti-SLAPP Motion. The Motion requests fees and costs in the total amount of $19,745, which represents $18,635 in fees and $1,110 in costs.

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.)

The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.) A defendant can carry its burden of establishing its entitlement to attorney’s fees by submitting a declaration from counsel instead of billing records or invoices. (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487-88; City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 785.) In challenging attorney’s fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. (Id. at 488.)

Moving Defendant provides evidence that in connection with the anti-SLAPP Motion, it incurred fees and costs that reflect: (1) 4.2 hours of work at a rate of $325 per hour; (2) 38.8 hours of work at a rate of $275 per hour; (3) $60 in filing fees; and (4) $495 to retain a court reporter. (Declaration of Yvette Davis (“Davis Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 4; Declaration of Elizabeth A. Evans (“Evans Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4, 6.)

In connection with the current Motion, Moving Defendant incurred fees and costs that reflect: (1) eight hours preparing the moving papers; (2) an anticipated 16 hours reviewing the opposition, drafting the reply, and attending the hearing at a rate of $275 per hour; and (3) a $60 filing fee. (Evans Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5-6.)

Plaintiff argues that the current fee request is excessive and refers to the Evans Declaration filed in support of the anti-SLAPP Motion, wherein Evans declared that Moving Defendant incurred a total of $3,910 in fees and costs, which represented 14 hours of work at a rate of $275 per hour and a $60 filing fee. (anti-SLAPP Evans Decl. ¶ 3.)

Moving Defendant does not explain the discrepancy between the calculation of attorney’s fees for work performed on the anti-SLAPP Motion that it initially proffered in support of the anti-SLAPP Motion and its current fee request. With the exception of the cost to have a court reporter present at the hearing, the Court declines to award Moving Defendant attorney’s fees connected to the preparation of the anti-SLAPP Motion that exceed those that it originally requested.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion in part and awards Moving Defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $6,665, which represents: (1) the $3,910 in fees and costs requested in the anti-SLAPP Motion; (2) $495 in court reporter costs; and (3) $2,260 in fees and costs incurred in connection with preparing the Motion.[2]

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The malicious prosecution claim was the only claim Plaintiff alleged against Moving Defendant.

[2] The $2,260 represents eight hours of work at a rate of $275 per hour and a $60 filing fee.