Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2020-00040674-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00040674-CU-NP-CTL SIMPSON VS DOLAN-CLUNE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 03/15/2023

Defendants COLLEEN DOLAN-CLUNE, JON RIGNEY, and ELISABETH DAWSON 's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. On February 15, 2023, the court issued its Minute Order granting Defendants' Special Motion to Strike portions of the Plaintiff's complaint.

In the minute order, the court stated: 'A prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant's attorney's fees and costs. (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.(c)(1).) A statute authorizing an attorney fee award at the trial court level includes appellate attorney fees unless the statute specifically provides otherwise. (Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1426.) 'Defendants are entitled to bring a motion for determination of the reasonable amount of attorney's fees to be awarded as the prevailing party in a successful anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702.' Defendants now bring this motion for a determination of reasonable attorney's fees not only for the anti-SLAPP motion, but also for their successful appeal of the trial court's previous ruling denying their anti-SLAPP motion.

A prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant's attorney's fees and costs. (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.(c)(1).) A statute authorizing an attorney fee award at the trial court level includes appellate attorney fees unless the statute specifically provides otherwise. (Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1426.) An award of attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is mandatory.

Attorney's fees and costs incurred on appeal are also mandatory under CCP § 425.16(c)(1). Liu v. Moore (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 745. Courts are to use the lodestar method in calculating the amount of reasonable attorney's fees for the prevailing defendant in an anti-SLAPP Motion.

Under the lodestar approach, a base amount is calculated from a compilation of time reasonably spent at a reasonable hourly rate for each attorney. The reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant community. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095) California courts do not require detailed time records, and trial courts have discretion to award fees based on declarations of counsel describing the work they have done and the court's own view of the number of hours reasonably spent. (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 698.) Declarations under penalty of perjury in support of the hours sought, broken down by hours expended in each category of services rendered, is sufficient for a trial judge, who has presided over the entire matter, to evaluate whether the time expended by counsel in this case, given its complexity and other factors, was reasonable. (see Syers, supra, at 700.) This Court accepts the declaration of Rian W. Jones and finds that it sufficiently sets for the hours and description of work performed. However, the Court finds that the amount requested for the full recovery on the Anti-SLAPP motion is not warranted based on the partial win at the appellate level.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2949731  54 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SIMPSON VS DOLAN-CLUNE [IMAGED]  37-2020-00040674-CU-NP-CTL A partially-prevailing Defendant can only recover the fees related to the successful 'portion' of their anti-SLAPP motion. '[T]he court should first determine the lodestar amount for the hours expended on the successful claims, and, if the work on the successful and unsuccessful causes of action was overlapping, the court should then consider the defendant's relative success on the motion in achieving his or her objective, and reduce the amount if appropriate.' Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.

(2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 344-345. This is the proper metric in determining to what extent Defendants 'prevailed' on their anti-SLAPP motion: the ratio between what Defendants achieved (eliminating a single (admittedly significant) item of claimed damages), as compared to what Defendants sought (striking the entire complaint and dismissing the lawsuit).

There is no attempt in this case to allocate between the 'claims' upon which defendants prevailed and those that the defendant prevailed. And how can that allocation be made? Defendants moved and appealed on the ground that the entire case should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal ruled that there was an 'issue' that should be stricken – anything related to the attempted foreclosure of the closet. But this issue does not remove any cause of action from the Complaint – there remains a single cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants still will be required to defend this action based on alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the association related to conflict of interest allegations regarding its allegedly improper decision to require plaintiff to replace flooring in her unit.

After carefully considering the allegation of the 'closet' in the narrative of the Complaint, the Court finds that it was one issue demonstrating an alleged vendetta after plaintiff would not cede to defendant's improper demands upon plaintiff regarding flooring replacement. The Court finds that it appropriate to award 25% value to this issue and awards $30,753.75 in fees and costs.

Defendants' Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED. The Court finds that, even after excising the allegations in the pleading related to litigation privilege, the pleading alleges conduct that a trier of fact could conclude supports punitive damages.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2949731  54