Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00028349-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 30, 2023

09/01/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00028349-CU-MC-CTL SMITH VS KNIGHTLY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT CLAYTON BRUCE SMITH'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR MANDATORY ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS AGAINST THOMAS KNIGHTLY is GRANTED.

Plaintiff CLAYTON BRUCE SMITH ('Plaintiff') seeks attorney's fees and costs from Defendant THOMAS KNIGHTLY ('Defendant') as to Plaintiff's successful anti-SLAPP motion.

'[A] prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).) The California Supreme Court has stated 'Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 permits the use of the so-called lodestar adjustment method under our long-standing precedents, beginning with Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25 [141 Cal.Rptr. 315, 569 P.2d 1303] (hereafter Serrano III).' (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131.) 'It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court .... [Citations.] The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. [Citation.] The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony. [Citations.] The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.' (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624 [134 Cal.Rptr. 602].) (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.) Fees incurred in bringing a motion for attorneys' fees are recoverable under CCP section 425.16. (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 433.) A successful defendant is entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred on the motion to strike, not the entire action; however, fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion to strike are recoverable.

(Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 20–21.) 'The statute is broadly construed so as to effectuate the legislative purpose of reimbursing the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extricating [himself] from a baseless lawsuit.' (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 446.) The Court may adjust the lodestar downward based on the inclusion of fees for work unrelated to the merits motion, for vague or 'blockbilled' time entries, and for work that was 'unnecessary.' (569 East County, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at 441.) The same applies to 'inefficient or duplicative efforts.' (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982491  45 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SMITH VS KNIGHTLY [IMAGED]  37-2022-00028349-CU-MC-CTL Plaintiff supports his request for $34,494.00 in attorney fees and $132.85 in costs via the declaration of Plaintiff's counsel. Failure to file any opposition to the motion indicates Defendant's acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. (See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) Defendant does not dispute that the hourly rate nor the number of hours expended are unreasonable. The motion is granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982491  45