Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV15059, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15059    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion for attorney fees is DENIED.  

On 5/5/2022, Plaintiff Anna Granucci filed suit against the Hollywood Reporter, LLC, Penske Media Corporation, Tatiana Siegel, Media Rights Capital II, PMRC Holdings, LLC, and Eldridge Industries, LLC, alleging: (1) libel; and (2) invasion of privacy.

            On 9/12/2022, Defendants’ special motion to strike was granted.

            Now, Defendants the Hollywood Reporter, LLC, Penske Media Corporation, Tatiana Siegel, and PMRC Holdings, LLC (collectively, Defendants) move to recover $58,149.50 in attorney fees.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that as the prevailing party on its anti-SLAPP motion, they are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees.

            However, in response to Defendants’ special motion to strike, Plaintiff filed a dismissal of this action. As such, no opposition or reply was ever filed and there was never a ruling on the merits of Defendants’ motion. As such, Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff’s answer “would have been stricken if she had not abandoned the lawsuit after the SLAPP Motion was filed” is purely speculative. The fact that Plaintiff dismissed the action could reflect a strategic decision to avoid the risk of an adverse judgment, and does not on its own constitute a concession on the merits. Moreover, it would be contrary to public policy interests to penalize Plaintiff for dismissing the action—the very goal of anti-SLAPP laws—rather than continuing the litigation and opposing the motion on the merits.   

            Finally, the Court notes the unreasonableness on its face of a request for $58,149.50 in attorney fees for a motion that was never opposed, never heard on the merits, and which was prepared by experienced media and first amendment attorneys. The extreme padding of Defendants’ billing records is evinced by the sheer number of hours claimed for a straight forward motion, the amount of time billed for review of correspondence, and the fact that there are multiple billings for reviewing Plaintiff’s request for dismissal and communications over “strategy for addressing plaintiff’s dismissal.”

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for attorney fees is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.