Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV29401, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29401    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 55

LONG v. SAFI                                                          20STCV29401

Hearing Date:  5/16/23,  Dept. 55

#7:   

MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES ON APPEAL FOR APPELLATE CASE NUMBER BC312240.

MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES ON APPEAL FOR APPELLATE CASE NUMBER B314462.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant SID M. SAFI, currently a self-represented litigant.

RP:  

Summary

On 8/4/20, Plaintiff RICHARD LONG (now self-represented) filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants acted without probable cause in filing an underlying action, as there was no reasonable possibility that said action could have resulted in a finding that LONG owed money to SAFI, because actually SAFI borrowed money from LONG.

The causes of action are:

1.      MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

2.      INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

3.      NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

4.      ELDER ABUSE.

There were two appeals pending in this case-- Case Number B312240 where defendant appealed the ruling denying his anti-SLAPP motion as to malicious prosecution cause of action, and Case Number B314462 where plaintiff Richard Long appealed the attorney fees allowed after partly granting the anti-SLAPP motion. 

MP Positions

Moving Defendant requests an order awarding attorney’s fees ($13,237.50 and  $10,282.50) for two appeals, for reasons including the following:

·         Defendant prevailed under the SLAPP statute.  CCP   § 425.16.

·         The SLAPP statute includes attorney’s fees on appeal.  Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.App.4^th 1490, 1499.

·         A remittitur issued 2/23/22 directing the granting of the SLAPP motion as to malicious prosecution.

·         Defendant’s former attorney did work before substituting out of this case.

·         The hours of 12.8 and 10.1 for attorneys’ work and 13 for paralegals’, in each of two appeals, are reasonable.

·         The $800 down to $225, hourly rates, are reasonable.

·         A 1.5 multiplier as to each appeal would add to the award, to compensate for taking this case on a contingency basis.

Tentative Ruling

Both unopposed motions are granted, as prayed.

The Court awards to Defendant SID M. SAFI attorneys' fees in the total sum of $23,520.00 against Plaintiff RICHARD LONG.

Any parties seeking to oppose motions for attorneys’ fees have a burden of proof, including a specific analysis or factual support.  Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co.  (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 545;  Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea  (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1376.

Attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, are recoverable.  Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1141.  A prevailing defendant as to a special motion to strike is entitled to mandatory, reasonable attorney fees and costs.  Ketchum v. Moses  (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141 -1142;  CCP §425.16(c).

The provisions for awarding attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, subdivision (c), include the authority to award fees incurred in responding to an appeal of an order granting or denying a special motion to strike.  City of Alhambra v. D'Ausilio (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 1309-10.

“Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, allows a court awarding attorney fees to include a fee enhancement for the purpose, e.g., of compensating the attorney who agreed to undertake such representation at the risk of nonpayment or delayed payment, in an amount approaching the market rate for comparable legal services.”  Ketchum v. Moses  (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1136.