TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Kraig Hill’s Motion for Anti-SLAPP Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [CCP § 425.16(c)] is GRANTED in the reduced amount of 45,850.00. Costs shall be awarded pursuant to statute.

Defendant Kraig Hill to give notice. 

REASONING

On May 30, 2024, the Court granted Defendant Kraig Hill (“Defendant”)’s special motion to strike Plaintiffs Lacy J. Harber and Dorothy J. Harber (“Plaintiffs”)’s complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Defendant now moves for an award of attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c), which provides that “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.” Defendant moves for an order awarding him $92,024.00 in fees and costs incurred as to the anti-SLAPP motion and this fee motion, which consists of $91,224 in fees and $880 in costs. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the ground that Defendant’s fees and costs should be reduced because the hourly rate is too high. Insofar as Defendant has provided new evidence with his reply, the Court has not considered that new evidence because Plaintiffs have been denied an opportunity to respond, and the Laffey Matrix and Salary Tables would not change the Court’s ruling herein.

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily “begins with the ‘lodestar’ [method], i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) “[A] computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.” (Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.) The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [discussing factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award].) Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id. at p. 48, fn. 23.) The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include “(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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Mountjoy v. Bank of America (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 271.)

The Court has reviewed the special motion to strike and present fees motions and hours worked relating to the same and finds that the work performed was reasonable and necessary to prevail on the motion, but the hourly rate of $800 is not reasonable considering the amount of time spent on the motions, i.e., counsel could have employed an associate billing at a lower rate to perform much of the work, or counsel should have spent less hours preparing the motions considering his years of experience. Thus, the Court reduces the rate to $500 per hour. The Court also declines to use a contingency risk multiplier here, as the Court cannot conclude that this case was particularly novel or required unusual skill or knowledge, and this is not the sort of action that required litigating on a contingency basis. Thus, the Court awards Defendant for its 74.1 hours of work spent litigating the anti-SLAPP motion, 7.6 hours of work spent preparing the present motion, and 10 hours reviewing the opposition, filing a reply, and attending the hearing on this motion at the rate of $500 per hour. Accordingly, Defendant Kraig Hill’s Motion for Anti-SLAPP Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [CCP § 425.16(c)] is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $45,850.00. Costs shall be awarded pursuant to statute.