Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV01722, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01722    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Department 20

Hearing Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023

Case Name: Hayward v. Daley

Case No.: 22STCV01722

Motion: Motion for Attorney Fees

Moving Party: Defendant Cassie Daley

Responding Party: Unopposed 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED. The Court awards attorney fees in the reduced amount of $46,297.50 and costs in the amount of $1,766.64.

Defendant to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Matthew Hayward filed a Complaint against Defendant Cassie Daley for (1) libel per se and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant falsely stated on Twitter that Plaintiff sexually harassed 20 plus women, thereby injuring Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation. 

Defendant later brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which the Court granted on November 8, 2022.

On December 1, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, and declared that Defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to CCP §425.16(c)(1). (Judgment, p.2.)

Before the Court is Defendant’s fully briefed motion for attorney fees. This motion was filed on January 9, 2023. This motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Applicable law

Subject to certain exceptions, “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c)(1).) This has been interpreted to mean attorney fees and costs spent on the motion to strike. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1381 (“[W]e hold that a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs only for the motion to strike, not for the entire action.”).) This has also been interpreted as being “limited to recovery of reasonable attorney fees.” (Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 352.)

“It is well established that ‘[t]he amount of an attorney fee award under the anti-SLAPP statute is computed by the trial court in accordance with the familiar “lodestar” method. Under that method, the court “tabulates the attorney fee touchstone, or lodestar, by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar work.” ’ ” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 432, as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 29, 2016).)

A defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion while being represented by pro bono legal counsel may recover attorney's fees. (Rosenaur v. Scherer, 88 Cal. App. 4th 260, 283 (3d Dist. 2001).)

Application to facts

Defendant first requests $1,766.64 in costs. (Memorandum of Costs (Summary).) Specifically, Defendant requests $661.85 in filing and motion fees; $150.00 in jury fees; $672.94 in court reporter fees as established by statute; and $281.85 in fees for electronic filing or service. (Memorandum of Costs (Summary).) The Court finds that these costs are reasonable and merited. 

Defendant next requests a lodestar amount of $90,372.10. (Sanderson Decl. ¶¶ 16-17 [including detailed time records].). Defendant also requests a lodestar multiplier in the Court’s discretion. (Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, pg. 8, line 17.) For the reasons below, the Court finds that a reduced amount of these fees is reasonable and merited.  

1. How Defendant Arrived at $90,372.10

• In total, Defendant claims to have spent 106.96 hours in connection with the Anti-SLAPP motion and this motion for attorney’s fees. (Sanderson Declaration, ¶ 6, line 11- ¶ 11, line 15.) 
• Defendant’s lead attorney was Joseph Sanderson, an associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Mr. Sanderson’s rate is $880 per hour. (Sanderson Declaration, ¶ 11.) According to Steptoe & Johnson LLP’s table of time records in paragraph 17 of the Sanderson Declaration, Mr. Sanderson worked 98.31 hours for a total of $86,512.80. (Sanderson Decl. ¶ 17 [including detailed time records].) 
• Mr. Sanderson’s supervising attorney for this case was Robyn Crowther, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson. (Sanderson Declaration, ¶ 7.) Ms. Crowther’s standard rate is $1,170.00 per hour. (Sanderson Declaration, ¶ 7.) Defendant is seeking fees for Ms. Crowther for 1.3 hours for a total of $1,521.00. (Sanderson Decl. ¶ 17 [including detailed time records].)
• Defendant also requests fees for the principal paralegal on this case, Melissa Hernandez.   (Sanderson Declaration, ¶ 12.) Ms. Hernandez’s standard rate is $345 per hour. (Sanderson Declaration, ¶ 12.) She worked 6.1 hours for a total of $2,104.50. (Sanderson Decl. ¶ 17 [including detailed time records].)
• Defendant also requests fees for the contract paralegal, Melissa Ziady, who filled in when Ms. Hernandez was unavailable. (Sanderson Declaration, ¶ 13.) Ms. Ziady’s standard rate is $195 per hour and she worked for 1.25 hours for a total of $243.75. (Sanderson Decl. ¶ 17 [including detailed time records].)

2. Related and Unrelated Fees

As indicated above, “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs only for the motion to strike, not for the entire action.” (Lafayette, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at 1381.) “An award of attorney fees to a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion properly includes attorney fees incurred to litigate the special motion to strike (the merits fees) plus the fees incurred in connection with litigating the fee award itself (the fees on fees),” but it “may not include matters unrelated to the anti-SLAPP motion” as well as “fees [that] ‘would have been incurred whether or not [the defendant] filed the motion to strike.’” (569 East County Boulevard, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at 433.)

Here, Defendant is requesting attorneys’ fees for the following:

• Researching, drafting, and revising the anti-SLAPP motion. 
• Researching, drafting, and revising the reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. 
• Researching, drafting, and revising the leave to file anti-SLAPP motion. This motion was directly related to the anti-SLAPP motion and thus fits within the bounds delineated by 569 East County Boulevard.
• Researching, drafting, and revising the reply to the leave to file anti-SLAPP motion. 
• Discussing the case with the client and negotiating throughout with opposing counsel.

Defendant argues the amount of hours for which fees are sought is reasonable for an Anti-SLAPP motion given that additional motion practice was required to seek leave to file the special motion to strike and to compel the posting of an undertaking to secure an Anti-SLAPP fee award as a result of Plaintiff’s threats to ignore an Anti-SLAPP fee award against him. Defendant argues that courts have approved more than three or four times the number of hours in connection with an Anti-SLAPP motion. 

The Court finds that the requested fees are mostly connected to anti-SLAPP motion or this motion for attorneys’ fees. However, according to the description of the fees included in the time records table in paragraph 17, a portion of the fees requested were accrued in connection with the case management conference, discussing settlement offers with the client, scheduling of calls or meetings with the client, general strategy, and discussing the case with the client. Mr. Sanderson himself stated in his declaration that he removed entries for which reimbursement is not sought, including relating to the case management conference. Yet certain entries describing such work remain in Defendant’s 106.96 hour figure. Therefore, the Court reduces the hours claimed by Defendant’s lead counsel, Mr. Sanderson, by 10 hours to eliminate fees that would be considered unrelated for purposes of CCP § 425.16. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the 96.96 hours is the proper time component for lodestar calculations.

3. Reasonableness of Defendant’s Requested Lodestar

Defendant argues that Defendant’s attorneys, Ms. Crowther and Mr. Sanderson, are experienced and appropriately skilled for this type of matter and attract commensurate rates from paying clients. Defendant puts forth evidence of both attorneys’ experience yet no proof for its assertion that Steptoe & Johnson LLP’s rates are consistent with Los Angeles market rates. Plaintiff did not file an opposition and offers no alternative market rates. 

The Court finds that the rates for Ms. Crowther, Mr. Sanderson, Ms. Ziady, and Ms. Hernandez are excessive. The Court finds that more reasonable hourly rates would be $800 for Ms. Crowther; $500 for Mr. Sanderson; $150 for Ms. Ziady; and $150 for Ms. Hernandez. 

Therefore, the lodestar amount is comprised of $1,040 for Ms. Crowther; $44,155 for Mr. Sanderson; $187.50 for Ms. Ziady; and $915 for Ms. Hernandez. 

Accordingly, the lodestar total is $46,297.50. 

4. Lodestar Multiplier

Defendant also requests a lodestar multiplier because Defendant’s counsel took on the case pro bono, underwent significant risk due to Plaintiff making it known that he would try         to evade any obligation incurred as a result of the lawsuit including paying attorneys’ fees, and fought to vindicate important First Amendment rights by representing a defendant victim of sexual harassment or abuse. Defendant argues                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     awarding attorneys’ fees is an important mechanism of deterring similar actions by other                                                     nnbbbjjjjjPlaintiffs seeking to silence victims through meritless litigation. 

Here, the Court does not believe a multiplier is merited given the size of the attorneys’ fees award without the multiplier. 

CONCLUSION

The Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED. The Court awards attorney fees in the reduced amount of $46,297.50 and costs in the amount of $1,766.64.

Defendant to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.