Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV19512, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19512    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services’ motion for attorney fees and costs is granted in the reduced amount of $250,767.65.

          Defendant Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services (“Athens”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order awarding attorney fees and costs to be paid by Plaintiff WasteXperts, Inc. (“WasteXperts”) (“Plaintiff”).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §425.16(c).)  Specifically, Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $286,099.00 as well as costs and expenses in the amount of $767.65 for a total amount requested by this motion of $286,866.65.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)  In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant Athens’ fees should be awarded in the reduced amount of $27,500.00.  (Opposition, pg. 8.)

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s 1/17/23 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Ronald H. Turovsky (“Turovsky”) are overruled as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

          Background

          On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Athens and non-moving Defendant the City of Los Angeles (“City”) (“Non-moving Defendant”) concerning the collection of waste from City residents.  On August 17, 2022, Defendant Athens filed its special motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint (anti-SLAPP motion).  On October 24, 2022, this Court granted Defendant Athens’ special motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint and directed Defendant Athens to separately move to obtain an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under C.C.P. §425.16(c).  (10/24/22 Ruling.)  Defendant Athens filed its memorandum of costs on November 8, 2022.  Judgment was entered on November 19, 2022.

          Defendant Athens filed the instant motion on December 23, 2022.  Plaintiff filed its opposition on January 17, 2023.  Defendant Athens filed its reply on January 23, 2023.

Attorneys’ Fees

The purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute is to protect the constitutional rights of petition and speech. To further this important purpose, the statute is designed to “adequately compensate the defendant for the expense of responding to a baseless lawsuit.”  (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785.)

C.C.P. §425.16(c) provides, “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.”  (See Vargas v. City of Salinas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340  [“Under section 425.16, subdivision (c), an award of attorney fees to a defendant prevailing on a special motion to strike is mandatory.”]; Premier Medical Management System, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 556 [The fee award ‘should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee.’ “] quoting Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131].)

The amount to award for an anti-SLAPP motion is to be determined by the two-step lodestar-adjustment method.  (See Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at pg. 1136 [“[B]ecause the anti-SLAPP provisions refer to attorney fees and costs without indicating any restrictions on how they are to be calculated, we accordingly presume that the Legislature intended courts use [sic] the prevailing lodestar adjustment method.”], citing Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  Under the lodestar method, the trial court first calculates the “lodestar,” which consists of reasonable hourly rates multiplied by a reasonable number of hours.  (Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at pg. 1133.)  The lodestar may then be adjusted to take into account other factors that go into the determination of a reasonable attorneys’ fee, such as the contingent nature of any fee recovery, the results obtained, and the public interests served.  (Id. at pgs. 1133-1136.)  In making its calculation, the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees, the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied, and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.  (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc., (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437.) 

          Reasonableness of Hourly Rate

In terms of the hourly rates of Defendant Athens’ counsel, the Court finds them reasonable.  Defendant Athens submitted documentation supporting its counsel’s hourly rates: (1) Ronald Turovsky at an hourly rate of $1,062.50, (2) Donald Brown at an hourly rate of $930.75, (3) Alexandra Hill at an hourly rate of $718.25, and (4) Amy Lesperance at an hourly rate of $646.00.  (Decl. of Turovsky ¶¶2-6, Exh. 1.)  Counsel Turovsky declares the hourly rates charged are net and reflect a 15% discount off its standard 2022 rates.  (Decl. of Turovsky ¶5.)  Defendants contest the above stated hourly rates and argue Defendant’s Counsel’s rates are unreasonable because of an “unfortunate trend in the Los Angeles legal community that partner rates at larger firms now exceed $1,000 per hour.”  (Opposition, pg. 7.)  However, Plaintiff does not provide evidence to rebut Defendant Athens’ showing that its rates are within the range charged by attorneys of similar skill, reputation, and experience in the applicable jurisdiction.  Based on the submissions and the Court’s experience, Plaintiff’s rates are reasonable.

Reasonableness of Hours for Actual Work Performed

Under California law, counsel is entitled to compensation for every hour reasonably spent on the matter.  (Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at pg. 1133 [“Absent circumstances rendering the award unjust, an attorney fee award should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee.”].) 

Here, Defendant Athens submitted documentation supporting the work performed by its attorneys: (1) Ronald Turovsky for a total of 136.4 hours, (2) Donald Brown for a total of 117.2 hours, (3) Alexandra Hill with a total of 12.3 hours, and (4) Amy Lesperance with a total of 36.0 hours.  (Decl. of Turovsky ¶¶2-6, Exh. 1.)  Defendant Athens submits a total of 301.9 hours of actual work performed on this matter.  (See Decl. of Turovsky ¶¶2-6, Exh. 1.)  Defendant Athens has also elected to not seek to recover fees incurred to prepare and litigate this fee motion, which is normally recoverable under C.C.P. §455.16(c).  (Motion, pg. 11.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues 300.9 [sic] hours to prepare a single motion, reply, and ex parte opposition is excessive. (Opposition, pg. 3; see, e.g., Maughan v. Google (2006)143 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251 [rejecting an anti-SLAPP fee demand for 200 hours because “such a motion should not have been such a monumental undertaking.”].)  Plaintiff argues Defendant Athens’ inflated hours are caused by substantial duplication of tasks between Counsel Turovsky and Counsel Brown and the partner time spent on associate-level tasks.  (Opposition, pg. 3.)  Plaintiff argues Turovsky and Brown spent a total of 18.2 hours “analyzing” the anti-SLAPP motion, while only a single associate hour was spent on the same task, both partners spent more than 90 hours “drafting and revising” the opening papers alone, while only one associate spent 1.8 hours finalizing it, both partners spent a total 9.2 hours drafting and revising the Cesar Torres declaration, three attorneys spent 3.5 hours analyzing and responding to a request to allow discovery or an amended complaint, Turovsky spent 10 hours drafting an ex parte opposition before the application was even filed, four lawyers spent a total of 25.3 hours preparing an ex parte opposition, and Turovsky and Brown spent a collective 56.8 hours drafting and revising the reply papers.  (Opposition, pgs. 3-5.)  The Court will impose some reduction for duplicative hours, but not the reduction requested by Plaintiff.

          Costs

          As the prevailing defendant on its motion to strike, Defendant Athens is entitled to costs.  (C.C.P. §425.16(c).)  Defendant Athens submitted its Cost Memorandum on November 8, 2022, and Plaintiff did not move to tax costs.  Accordingly, Defendant Athens’ costs are granted in the amount of $767.65.

          Final Lodestar Determination

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the hourly rates requested for Defendants counsel are reasonable. For the reasons discussed above, the court imposes some reduction to the number of attorney hours requested.   The Court finds that the reasonable lodestar fee is  $250,000.00.

Dated:  January _______, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court