Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV01097, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01097    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

           This is a defamation action. Plaintiffs Geoff Antonio Hedgpeth and his company G.A. Public Adjusters (GAPA) sue former clients, alleging that they posted false and defamatory reviews on Google’s review section for GAPA. Defendants Nassim Saeedy, Noah Saeedy and Aria Language Services (collectively Defendants) deny posting the reviews but argue that the posts are in any event defensible as true. 

The matter was dismissed on November 14, 2023, as the Complaint was stricken without leave to amend. Defendants now move for an order fixing their fee award.

Defendants filed their motion January 12, 2024. It was unopposed. Defendants filed a reply February 5, 2024, noting the lack of opposition. The hearing on the motion was continued from February 13, 2024, to its current date of February 20, 2024, to allow for moving party’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration clarifying the amount requested. Defendants submitted this supplemental declaration on February 14, 2024.

The motion is granted, and fees are awarded in an adjusted amount, as explained  below.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(a)(1) provides for attorney fees as costs when provided for by contract, statute, or law.

          CCP Section 425.16 is the Anti-SLAPP provision of California law. It provides, in pertinent part, “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.” (CCP § 435.16(c)(1).)

          CCP Section 685.070 provides that a judgment creditor may claim the costs of enforcing a judgment by serving a memorandum of costs on the judgment creditor and then a motion to tax costs. A motion to tax costs is not required to recover the costs. (CCP § 685.070(c)-(d).) CCP Section 685.090(a)(2) provides that costs are to be added to and become part of the judgment if “a memorandum of costs is filed pursuant to Section 685.070 and no motion to tax is made, upon the expiration of the time for making the motion.” (CCP § 685.090(a)(2).) California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700 provides the procedure for a motion to tax costs. (CRC 3.1700(b)(1).)

III.     ANALYSIS

A. Prevailing Party

Here, Defendants are arguing that they are entitled to attorney’s fees. Defendants urge that  “Defendants prevailed on their motion and therefore are "entitled" to recover their fees and costs” (Motion Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p. 3: 22-24.) Defendants cite the October 3, 2023, Minute Order granting their Anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety as well as the November 14, 2023, Notice of Dismissal. Defendants urge that none of the exceptions in Subsection (c)(2) apply as the Complaint was not brought under those specified government code sections. The Court agrees. (See Complaint p. 1.) Defendants also cite Christian Research for the proposition that the attorney fee award under CCP Section 425.16(c)(1) is mandatory. (See Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.)

Therefore, as Defendants are the prevailing party on their special motion to strike,  they are the prevailing party in terms of CCP 425.16(c). As such, they are entitled to attorney fees.

B. Reasonableness of Fees

          The analysis of reasonableness of attorney fee awards considers “the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attorney’s efforts, his learning, his age, and his experience in the particular type of work demanded…” (Berry v. Chaplin (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 669, 678-679, citations omitted.) There is no requirement that billing records be provided to a trial court in connection with a motion for fees pursuant to contract. The declaration of counsel as to the hours expended on the litigation and the hourly rates charged for such time is all that is required. “[T]here is no legal requirement that an attorney supply billing statements to support a claim for attorney fees.” (Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. Ersoff (2007) 135 Cal.App.4th 257, 269.) “[T]here is no legal requirement that such statements be offered in evidence. An attorney’s testimony as to the number of hours worked is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records.” (Steiny & Co., Inc. v. California Electric Supply Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.)

Here, the supplemental declaration and original declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Ravi D. Sahae, provide a sufficient basis for the fee request. (Supplemental Sahae Declaration, Sahae Declaration.) Sahae clarifies the redacted time entries in his  supplemental declaration.  He also lodged the unredacted entries under seal with the Court. (Supplemental Sahae Decl. ¶ 4.) In total, the adjusted attorney fee request as it pertains to the anti-SLAPP motion and Defendants’ costs memorandum is $18,905.00. (See Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1383 [providing that a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike is allowed to recover attorney fees incurred with respect to that motion solely, not as to the entire lawsuit].)

As to the instant motion for fees and costs, Sahae avers that he spent 4 hours preparing this motion, along with his co-counsel. (Sahae Decl. ¶12.)  He anticipated an additional 2 hours to be spent reviewing opposition and preparing a reply and 1 hour attending the hearing. (Id.) As to the time spent on the Anti-SLAPP motion, he includes an invoice for the time spent, including a description of the services rendered. (Sahae Decl. ¶ 13, see Exh. A.) The hourly rate is $475. (Sahae Decl. ¶¶ 13, 15.)

In his supplemental declaration, Sahae subtracts the anticipated two hours for replying to an opposition, as the motion was unopposed; and adds he 1.3 hours to the hearing time on the motion because he spent 2.3 hours at the hearing on the motion on February 13. (Supplemental Sahae Declaration ¶ 6.) He also declares that he spent 2 hours preparing the supplemental declaration and anticipates 1.5 hours to be spent at the February 20 hearing. (Id.)

          The Court has examined the evidence presented by Defendants and makes the following findings: $475 is a reasonable hourly rate. The Court declines to award time spent preparing the supplemental declaration, as this information should have been provided originally.  The Court, however, does amend the anticipated time spent hearing this motion to 3.8 hours. (2.3 hours at 2/13 hearing, 1.5 hours anticipated for 2/20 hearing.)  Adding both the time and fees spent on the instant motion and the anti-SLAPP motion, as well as time spent on the memorandum of costs (1.5 hours) yields a total of $22,610.00. ($18,905 + $3,705.00) The total of 47.60 hours is a reasonable amount of time spent, given the complexity of an anti-SLAPP motion. As such, the Court GRANTS the motion for attorney fees in the adjusted amount of $22,610.00.

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          Defendants’ motion for attorney fees is granted. Attorney fees are awarded in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs jointly in the amount of $22,610.00.

          Defendants are ordered to give notice of ruling.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L.OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT