Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

JOHN BROSNAN,

Plaintiff,

    vs.

RHS INC, et al.,

Defendants. Case No.: 22STCV36546

DEFENDANT SALIMA SURANI’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 

Defendant Salima Surani’s motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for conversion. The Complaint alleges as follows. 

Plaintiff John Brosnan (“Plaintiff”) and defendants RHS Surani Inc. (“RHS”) and Salima Surani (“Surani” and together, “Defendants”) rent commercial space in neighboring properties. (Compl. ¶ 13.) On May 26, 2019, Plaintiff parked his trailer in a neighboring parking lot within view of Defendants’ security cameras. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Surani called a contractor doing work on the Property and informed him that she was uncomfortable with the trailer in the property’s parking lot. (Compl. ¶ 14.) The contractor informed Surani that the trailer was not parked in her property’s lot. (Ibid.) Surani entered the trailer and began moving things around. (Ibid.) While rummaging in the trailer, Surani caused the trailer to be moved to her property’s parking lot. (Ibid.) Surani then had the trailer towed. (Ibid.) When Plaintiff went to recover the trailer, he discovered that its contents were gone. (Compl. ¶ 16.) 

Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was towed in violation of California Vehicle Code § 22658(2). (Compl. ¶ 18.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting three causes of action: 

1. Conversion;

2. Fraud; and, 

3. Tort of Another. 

On January 23, 2023, the case was reassigned to Department 78. 

On June 8, 2023, the Court granted the special motion to strike filed by Salima Surani.

On July 3, 2023, Surani filed the instant motion for attorney fees and costs.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Surani moves for attorney fees and costs arising from her special motion to strike which was granted on June 8, 2023.

C.C.P. §425.16(c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.”   

 

“[O]nly those attorney fees and costs related to the special motion to strike, not the entire action, may be recovered under section 425.16, subdivision (c).”  (Jackson v. Yarbray (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 75, 92.)  The limitation of C.C.P. §425.16(c) to an award of costs and attorney fees incurred “in connection with the special motion to strike” has been interpreted to include, “expenses incurred in litigating an award of attorney fees after the trial court has granted the motion to strike. It also includes fees incurred in responding to an appeal of an order granting a special motion to strike or an order awarding attorney fees in connection with such motion.” (Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 21.)  “Where costs and attorney fees are authorized for responding to an appeal of an order awarding costs and attorney fees under [C.C.P. §425.16(c)], there is no reason why this should not also encompass costs and attorney fees incurred in challenging the undertaking submitted by the plaintiff to stay enforcement of the award pending appeal.” (Ibid.)  C.C.P. §425.16(c), “is broadly construed so as to effectuate the legislative purpose of reimbursing the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extricating herself from a baseless lawsuit. (Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 362.) 

 

“The California Supreme Court has upheld the lodestar method for determining the appropriate amount of attorney fees for a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion. Under this method, a court assesses attorney fees by first determining the time spent and the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. The court next determines whether that lodestar figure should be adjusted based on various relevant factors, including a plaintiff’s limited success in the litigation.  In determining the lodestar amount, a prevailing party generally may not recover for work on causes of action on which the party was unsuccessful.”  (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 342 (Citations Omitted).) 

 

Here, Surani is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under C.C.P. §425.16(c). Surani prevailed on her special motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.

Surani’s counsel testifies that he expended 22.9 hours at a rate of $525 per hour, totaling $12,112.50. (Abraham Decl., ¶21; Exh. 11.) Counsel anticipated spending 2.2 hours of time responding to any opposition to this motion. (Id., ¶22.) Counsel’s costs consisted of $204.17 for the initial filing fee for the special motion to strike, a second filing fee after the first special motion to strike needed to be refiled, the filing fee for the instant motion, and the filing fee for the ex parte application advancing the date of the hearing on the special motion to strike. (Id., ¶23.) Service fees totaled $29.04. (Id., ¶25; Exh. 13.)

Counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable based on his experience. Counsel also properly provides a detailed record of the time entries attributed to the special motion to strike. The court finds that these fees are reasonable. The motion for attorney fees and costs is granted. Because Plaintiff did not oppose this motion, the request for anticipated attorney’s fees is denied. The Court awards a total of $12,345.71 in attorney fees and costs.

DATED: October 11, 2023 

________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court