Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03555, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03555    Hearing Date: January 16, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant Michael D. Lane’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Michael D. Lane’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff Jose Guzman Salcedo and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff Rafael R. Salcedo.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Jose Guzman Salcedo and Rafael R. Salcedo filed a complaint against Defendants Franchise Tax Board (FTB), E*TRADE Securities Inc., E*TRADE Securities LLC, E*TRADE Clearing LLC (E*TRADE Clearing), E*TRADE Financial Corp., E*TRADE Financial LLC, E*TRADE Group Inc. (E*TRADE), TIR Holdings Limited (TIR Holdings), John Edward Bersin, Michael D. Lane, Bank of America, N.A., (Bank of America) and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) general negligence against the FTB, (2) general negligence against E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Financial Corp., (3) fraud against E*TRADE Securities LLC, (4) intentional tort against Bersin, (5) intentional tort against Lane, (6) negligence against Lane, (7) negligence and fraud against Bank of America by Guzman Salcedo, and (8) negligence against Bank of America by Salcedo.

On June 24, 2024, the court sustained demurrers to the Complaint by E*TRADE Securities LLC, Bersin, and Bank of America without leave to amend. The court also granted E*TRADE Securities LLC and Bersin’s motion to compel arbitration.

On July 24, 2024, Lane filed a special motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. On September 4, 2024, the court granted Lane’s motion.

A hearing on the present motion is set for January 16, 2025, along with an OSC Re: Arbitration Status.

ANALYSIS

Lane moves the court for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs against Guzman Salcedo and Salcedo pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). For the following reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Lane’s motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1), “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney's fees and costs.” However, that defendant is not entitled to recover attorney fees if the underlying “cause of action is brought pursuant to Section 11130, 11130.3, 54960, or 54960.1 of the Government Code, or pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7923.100) of Part 4 of Division 10 of Title 1 of the Government Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(2).)

“The amount to be awarded to a party as attorney fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 152, 168.) In determining the reasonableness of an attorney fees award, the court considers “the nature, difficulty, intricacy and importance of the litigation, the amount involved, the skill required and success of the attorney's efforts, his or her learning, age and experience, and the time consumed.” (Id., at p. 169.)

Discussion

In this case, Lane seeks an award of attorney fees in the amount of $83,314.50. As to Guzman Salcedo, Lane is a prevailing defendant as the court granted Lane’s special motion to strike Guzman Salcedo’s fifth cause of action for intentional tort and sixth cause of action for negligence on September 4, 2024. But as to Salcedo, Lane did not strike any of Salcedo’s causes of action as Salcedo did not allege any against Lane. Thus, the court finds Lane is only entitled to attorney fees and costs from Guzman Salcedo.

The requested attorney fees are split between two attorneys. The first attorney, Mark Drooks, requests $5,902.00 at an hourly rate of $1,135.00 for 5.2 hours. (Mayer Decl., ¶ 11, 15.) The second attorney, Sharon Mayer, requests $75,162.50 at an hourly rate of $875.00 for 85.9 hours. (Mayer Decl., ¶ 11, 15.) In addition to the attorney fees, they also request $2,250.00 in fees for 5.7 hours of paralegal work. (Mayer Decl., ¶ 11, 15.) In a declaration, Mayer provides each attorney’s education and experience. (Mayer Decl., ¶ 3-4.) Mayer also provides billing statements to support Lane’s fee request. (Mayer Decl., Ex. 2.) Upon review, the amount requested is reasonable.

Lane has also requested the award of $1,314.41 costs. Because Guzman Salcedo failed to file any objection or request to tax costs, an award of these costs is also granted.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Lane’s motion in part as to Guzman Salcedo and DENIES Lane’s motion as to Salcedo.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Lane’s motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART as to Guzman Salcedo and DENIED IN PART as to Salcedo.