Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 20NWCV00360 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20NWCV00360, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00360 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: C

THOMAS v. LAKEWOOD VILLAGE TOWNHOMES H.O.A.

CASE NO.: 20NWCV00360

HEARING: 05/04/23

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

On October 27, 2022, the Court of Appeal reversed the Order of this Court granting Defendant ROTHMAN’s anti-SLAPP Motion. The Remittitur was issued on January 6, 2023. On March 7, 2023, the instant Motion was filed.

“Under rule 3.1702(b) of the California Rules of Court, a motion seeking fees following an order [granting or denying] an anti-SLAPP motion must be served and filed within the time limits for filing a notice of appeal. Under rule 8.104(a) and (f), a notice of appeal must be filed on or before 60 days after service of a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of the order [granting or denying] the anti-SLAPP motion by the superior court clerk or a party; otherwise, the notice of appeal must be filed on or before 180 days after the entry of the order [granting or denying] the anti-SLAPP motion.” (Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 545.) As argued in Reply, the instant Motion was filed within 60 days of the issuance of the Notice of Remittitur. The Motion is timely and Plaintiff has established an entitlement to attorney’s fees under CCP §425.16.

“[A] prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. (CCP §425.16(c).) “Any SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney fees.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131.) However, the award of attorney fees must be reasonable. (See Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 362.) [“We readily conclude section 425.16 similarly authorizes an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party…The right of prevailing defendants to recover their reasonable attorney fees under section 425.16 adequately compensates them for the expense of responding to a baseless lawsuit.”]

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $19,552.00 at the rate of $450.00/hr..

When assessing the amount of any attorney’s fee award, courts typically determine what is reasonable through the application of the “lodestar” method. Under the lodestar method, a base amount is calculated from a compilation of (1) time reasonably spent and (2) the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (Serrano v. Priest (“Serrano III”) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48); (See also Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 holding that the lodestar method applies to statutory attorney fees award unless the underlying statute provides for another method of calculation). Normally, a “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.) That amount may then be adjusted through the consideration of various factors, including “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) The Court is vested with discretion to determine which claimed hours were reasonably spent, and what an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501); (See also Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1987) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 644.) [“We readily acknowledge the discretion of the trial judge to determine the value of professional services rendered in his or her court.”].

In Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion should be denied as untimely. However, as indicated above, this Court finds that the Motion was timely filed. Defendant further argues that sanctions should be issued in Defendant under CCP §128.7. That request is DENIED. Defendant is not foreclosed from filing and serving a separate and properly noticed Motion for Sanctions under CCP §128.7. Defendant does not argue in Opposition. that the amount sought by Plaintiff is excessive.

The Court finds counsel’s hourly rate of $450/hr. reasonable.

Defendant has established an entitlement to reasonable fees in the total amount sought of $19,552.00. The Court’s determination is undertaken in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether or not rates or hours are reasonable. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501.)

The request(s) for sanctions under CCP §§128.5 and 128.7 are DENIED without prejudice. A motion for sanctions under these sections must be made separately from other motions or requests. (CCP §§128.5(f)(1)(A) and 128.7(c)(1).)

The Court declines to rule on the parties’ evidentiary objections. Appellate opinions confirm that some trial courts decline to rule on such objections. (Ashburn v. AIG Fin. Advisors, Inc., 234 Cal. App. 4th 79, 89, 90 (2015) (The trial court declined to rule on “14 pages of objections to evidence.”); Bradley v. Networkers Int’l, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1129, 1141 (2012) (trial court declined to rule on the defendant’s numerous evidentiary objections spanning 137 pages); Gorman v. Tassajara Dev. Corp., 178 Cal. App. 4th 44, 68 (2009) (trial court did not rule on evidentiary objections in connection with motion for attorney fees and costs); Laborers Pac. Sw. Reg’l Org. Coal. v. Gomez, No. D065958, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1971, at *12 n.9 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2015) (trial court declined to rule on evidentiary objections in connection with motion for preliminary injunction); Odell v. Ferrari, No. H034385, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8022, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2010) (trial court did not rule on evidentiary objections in connection with motion for preliminary injunction); In re Providian Credit Card Cases, No. A097482, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 12000, at *19 n.7 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2003) (trial court did not rule on evidentiary objections in connection with motion for attorney fees).