Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV01156, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01156    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 57

Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant Prysm Financial Technology, Inc ("Prysm") for an award of $17,422.50 in attorney's fees that Prysm says it incurred in connection with its defense against the appeal of Plaintiff Tapasya Ball ("Ball") from the Court's order granting Prysm's motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, which is known as the anti-SLAPP statute.  Bali dismissed the appeal before it really got off the ground.  Bali's dismissal of the appeal entitles Prysm to recover the fees it incurred on appeal.  The Court is, however, declining to award Prysm all of the fees that it seeks through its motion.  The Court is making the following reductions to the fee request.

First, the initial invoice of four invoices to Prysm from its attorneys that are attached to the attorney's fees motion contains billing entries for time the attorneys spent on arbitration proceedings that Bali initiated while simultaneously pursuing her appeal from the order granting Prysm's anti-SLAPP motion.. In the Court's view, the fees Prysm incurred related to these entries are non-recoverable because the work was not done in defense against Bali's appeal.  Rather, the purpose of the work was to stay the arbitration proceedings in light of the appeal -- proceedings that Prysm argued were an effort by Bali to circumvent the Court's ruling on Prysm's anti-SLAPP motion.  Accordingly, the Court is deducting from Prysm's fee request the fees generated from the work reflected on the first invoice that attorneys Kenneth Zielinski and Jonas Trevethan did related to the arbitration proceedings.   For Mr. Zielinski, the entries in question are 1.5 hours on July 24, 2024 and .80 hours on July 31, 2024.  For Mr. Trevethan, the entries in question are 1.7 hours on July 29, 2024 and 1.10 hours on July 30, 2024.   Mr. Zielinski's billing rate at the time was $625 per hour.  Mr. Trevethan's was $400.  The Court is thus deducting $1,437.50 in Mr. Zielinkski's fees on the first invoice (2.3 hours  X $625) and $1,120 in Mr. Trevethan's fees on that invoice (2.8 hours X $400).  The total reduction of the first invoice fees is thus $2,557.50 ($1,437.50 plus $1,120).  This reduction for the first invoice is more than the Court signaled at the January 27, 2025 hearing by which it would reduced the first invoice's fees.  

Second, the Court is deducting from the second of the four invoices work described in two billing entries -- one for Mr. Zielinski and one for Mr. Trevethan -- that, based on the description in the entries, the Court cannot determine is related to the appeal as opposed to the arbitration or something else.  These amounts are 0.20 hours at $625 for Mr. Zielinski and 0.4 hours at $400 for Mr. Trevethan, for a total of $285.

Third, and most significantly, the Court has concluded that the 19.1 hours that Prysm's attorneys say they spent in connection with the fees motion itself and the hearing on the motion is excessive.  It should not have taken the attorneys that long to prepare a relatively simple fee motion covering a limited amount of work over a short period of time (about four months) from the time Bali filed her notice of appeal to when she dismissed the appeal.   The Court is allowing fees related to the motion for 10 of the 17.1 hours of Mr. Trevethan;s time and all of the 2 hours of Mr. Zielinski's time.  In other words, the Court is reducing the amount of fees related to the motion by 7.1 hours of Mr. Trevethan's time, or $2,840 (7.1 hours X $400). 

When  the reductions in the three categories are added up and then deducted from the fee request in the motion, the Court is awarding  Prysm $11,740 in fees related to its defense against Bali's appeal from the order granting Prysm's anti-SLAPP motion  ($17,422.50 -$5,682.50).