III. DISCUSSION 

As an initial matter, Lab Zero argues Cross-Defendants are not prevailing parties and should not be awarded any attorney’s fees and costs.  In support, Lab Zero cites Moran v. Endres (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 952.  In Moran, the defendants filed a special motion to strike all the claims asserted, which include defamation, false light, intrusion, assault, battery, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Defendants succeeded only in striking the civil conspiracy claim.  The trial court concluded the defendant was not a prevailing party and declined to award fees.  The court of appeal affirmed, stating that defendants’ victory was illusory as they succeeded only in dismissing a claim that did not add any factual allegations.  (Moran, supra, at pp. 954-55.)  Moran is not this case.   

Unlike Moran, Cross-Defendants did not seek to strike all of Lab Zero’s claims and further, succeeded in dismissing Lab Zero’s claims for defamation and intentional interference with prospective economic relations.  These claims are distinct from Lab Zero’s remaining causes of action which include misappropriation, conversion, and breach of contract, among others.   

Because Cross-Defendants succeeded in dismissing two of four causes of action, Cross-Defendants are prevailing parties.  “A ‘prevailing defendant’ within the meaning of [the statute] includes a defendant whose anti-SLAPP motion was granted as to some causes of action but not others.”  (Area 51, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 605 (internal quotation marks omitted).)  Accordingly, Cross-Defendants are entitled to an award of fees and costs. 

A.   Attorney Fees 

Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees in the sum of $144,867.50.¿ This amount consists of multiplying counsels’ hourly rates ($700) and paralegals’ hourly rates ($200) by the time spent in connection with the special motion to strike (237.4 hours).  

¿  

“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.” (Mann, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 342; see also Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 613, 620 (“It is well settled that the trial courts are to use the lodestar method when determining an award of attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.”).)¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . involved in the presentation of the case.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.)  The court “need not simply award the sum requested. To the contrary, ascertaining the fee amount is left to the trial court's sound discretion.” (Ibid.) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.” (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395 (Horsford).) “The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based on counsel's declarations, without production of detailed time records.” (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.) “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 396; City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 785 (same).)¿¿¿ 

“The fees awarded to a defendant who was only partially successful on an anti-SLAPP motion should be commensurate with the extent to which the motion changed the nature and character of the lawsuit in a practical way.” (Mann, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 345.) 

Cross-Defendants retained King & Siegel LLP for this matter which involved work by attorneys Robert King and Elliot Siegel, whose hourly rates were $700. (King Decl., Ex. C.)¿ Additionally, paralegals Josue Avila and Marisol Contreras billed at $200.¿ 

Lab Zero argues the hourly billing rates for Cross-Defendants’ attorneys and non-attorneys are unreasonable.¿ Lab Zero requests a reduction of $600 for attorney work and $30 for paralegal work.   

Based upon general prevailing rates in the Los Angeles area for this type of litigation, the court finds Cross-Defendants’ counsels’ hourly rate of $700 is reasonable.  The court declines to reduce the rate.  The court further finds the support staff billing rate of $200.00 is reasonable.¿ This determination considers the complexity of the case, the quality of services provided, and the attorneys’ experience.¿¿¿ 

Lab Zero correctly points out that while Cross-Defendants request an hourly rate of $200 for paralegal work, Cross-Defendants’ billing entries reflect an hourly rate of $250 for paralegal work.  The court will therefore reduce the requested award to reflect paralegal work billed at $200 per hour.   

Cross-Defendants’ counsel’s records reflect a total of 237.4 billable hours spent litigating this matter. ¿(King Decl., Ex. C.)¿ This figure is comprised of 73 hours billed by paralegals.  Lab Zero argues the hours billed is excessive because: (1) Cross-Defendants were only partially successfully, (2) the motion did not implicate novel or complex issues; (3) Cross-Defendants’ counsel improperly seek recovery for clerical work and items unrelated to the special motions to strike.¿¿For this reason, Lab Zero requests that the billable hours be reduced by 75%, or roughly, 59.35 hours. ¿ 

The court agrees with Lab Zero that some reduction is warranted.  Cross-Defendants were successful only in striking two of four causes of action.  Cross-Defendants are not entitled for all the time billed simply because some of the work overlapped between causes of action which were struck or survived the special motion to strike.  However, with the exception of one request (see below), Lab Zero has not identified specific billing entries that are objectionable for any of the reasons identified. “[I]t is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged [within the moving party’s verified billing invoice], with a sufficient argument and citations to evidence.¿ General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.”¿ (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488.)  Further, while the court generally agrees some reduction is warranted, the court does not agree that Lab Zero’s requested reduction of 75% is “commensurate with the extent to which the motion changed the nature and character of the lawsuit in a practical way.” (Mann, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 345.)  Moreover, the court appreciates that these special motions to strike were heard several times over by the trial court and endured the appeal process.  Accordingly, the court reduces the requested sum as described below.  

Lab Zero challenges the 15 hours Cross-Defendants’ counsel seeks to recover in connection to the supplemental briefing with the eleventh cause of action for violation of the UCL.  (See King Decl., ¶ 16.)  Because Cross-Defendants were not successful in striking that claim, the court will reduce the request for attorney fees by $10,500 (15 hours x $700).  The court will also reduce the amount billed by paralegals by $2,940 (applying $200 hourly rate to 58.8 hours billed by paralegals; see King Decl., ¶¶ 12, 15).  After reductions, the court determines the lodestar to be $131,427.50.1 

Cross-Defendants seeks costs of $10,093.05.¿ Lab Zero challenges the costs because Cross-Defendants counsel’s chart describing the costs reflects a total of only $1,149.80. The court agrees with Lab Zero.  Costs only in the sum of $1,149.80 are reflected in the chart. (See Motion, p. 15; see also King Decl., ¶ 29).  Cross-Defendants do not explain how they arrive at the requested sum.¿ Accordingly, the court will award costs in the sum of $1,149.80 only.¿ 

C.  Request for Stay of Enforcement