Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 22STCV16234 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

While we remain under various emergency orders during the Covid-19 pandemic, all parties and counsel are encouraged to appear remotely on all civil matters.

If the interested parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling, they should call the judicial assistant together prior to the date of the scheduled hearing.

Teresa R. Burwell v. Dr. Phil McGraw, et al.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Paramount Global Holdings, Inc.; CBS Studios Inc.; and Dr. Phil McGraw

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Teresa R. Burwell (unopposed)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Teresa R. Burwell brought this action against Defendants The Dr. Phil Show, Dr. Phil McGraw, CBS Studios, and Paramount Studios. Plaintiff alleged that her and her children appeared on The Dr. Phil Show, and experienced unfair treatment and humiliation, among other things. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) negligent misrepresentation, (2) professional negligence, (3) personal injury, (4) equitable relief, (5) defamation, and (6) violation of Civil Code section 1714.

On November 22, 2022, this court granted Defendants’ special motion to strike the FAC in its entirety. (See 11/22/2022 Ruling.) Consistent with that ruling, Defendants now move for attorney’s fees.

Defendants’ Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees is CONTINUED to 9/29/23 at 8:30 am, pending the automatic bankruptcy stay.

A Status Review re: Bankruptcy is set for the same date and time.

Moving party to give notice.

A prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike “shall” be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs. (CCP 425.16(c)(1).)

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134.) “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’” “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award….” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.’” (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664.) The burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.)

The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee award which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1393-94. The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)

On November 22, 2022, this court granted Defendants’ special motion to strike the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. This court entered judgment in Defendants’ favor on December 13, 2022.

As the prevailing party, Defendants filed this motion for attorney’s fees on January 18, 2023. Then on February 2, 2023, Defendants filed a “Notice of Automatic Stay of Proceedings,” indicating Plaintiff Teresa R. Burwell filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on January 9, 2023.

The filing of a bankruptcy proceeding operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation ... of a judicial ... action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case.’” (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).) “The scope of an automatic stay is broad. The purpose of an automatic stay ‘is to give the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors, to stop all collection efforts, harassment and foreclosure actions. [Citations.] The automatic stay also prevents piecemeal diminution of the debtor's estate.’ [Citation]. An automatic stay usually precludes ‘any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case....’” (Cavanagh v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 83, 90; 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6).)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is CONTINUED pending the automatic stay.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

Dated: March 30, 2023 ___________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.