Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 21NWCV00756 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00756, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00756 Hearing Date: December 22, 2022 Dept: SEC

RIVERA v. ENTERPRISE TRUCK RENTAL, INC.

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00756

HEARING: 12/22/22

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#2
TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, LLC’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Re: Anti-SLAPP Motion is GRANTED in part in the reduced amount of $33,684.91.

Moving Party to give notice.

The Court notes that an Appellate Order dismissing the Appeal was FILED on October 27, 2022.

On July 26, 2022, this Court granted Defendant ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Special Motion to Strike under CCP §425.16.

“[A] prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. (CCP §425.16(c).) “Any SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney fees.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131.) However, the award of attorney fees must be reasonable. (See Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 362.) [“We readily conclude section 425.16 similarly authorizes an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party…The right of prevailing defendants to recover their reasonable attorney fees under section 425.16 adequately compensates them for the expense of responding to a baseless lawsuit.”]

Defendant seeks attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $60,906.91 for 109.7 hours of work at the rates of $710/hr., $397/hr., and $340/hr.—this figure includes Defendants’ counsel’s time incurred on the instant Motion and his estimated time to prepare the Reply brief.

When assessing the amount of any attorney’s fee award, courts typically determine what is reasonable through the application of the “lodestar” method. Under the lodestar method, a base amount is calculated from a compilation of (1) time reasonably spent and (2) the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (Serrano v. Priest (“Serrano III”) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48); (See also Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 holding that the lodestar method applies to statutory attorney fees award unless the underlying statute provides for another method of calculation). Normally, a “reasonable” hourly rate is the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant community. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) That amount may then be adjusted through the consideration of various factors, including “(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, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) The Court is vested with discretion to determine which claimed hours were reasonably spent, and what an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501); (See also Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1987) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 644.) [“We readily acknowledge the discretion of the trial judge to determine the value of professional services rendered in his or her court.”].

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the amount of fees sought is excessive.

The Court finds counsels’ hourly rates of $710/hr., $397/hr., and $340/hr. reasonable based on each attorney’s respective numbers of years of experience.

Defendant has established an entitlement to reasonable fees in the amount of $33,684.91. The Court’s determination is undertaken in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether or not rates or hours are reasonable. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501.) The Court reduces Defendant’s claimed hours and costs as follows:

(1) a reduction of $12,141. —17.1 hours at the rate of $710/hr. as unnecessarily duplicative of the work completed by Attorney Weintrop.

(2) a reduction of $5,576—16.4 hours at the rate of $340/hr. as unnecessarily duplicative of the work completed by Attorney Weintrop.

(3) A reduction of $3,550— 5 hours at the rate of $710/hr. as unnecessarily duplicative of the work completed by Attorney Weintrop for work completed on the instant Motion, the Reply, and to prepare for and appear for the hearing on this Motion.

(4) A reduction of $5,955— 15 hours at the rate of $397/hr. for time spent on drafting this Motion, the Reply, and to prepare for and attend the hearing. 25 hours is unreasonably excessive.

Accordingly, the Court grants attorney fees and costs in the reduced, but reasonable, amount of $33,684.91. Plaintiff does not challenge Defendant’s claimed costs. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed request for costs and expenses in the amount sought.