Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV01458, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01458    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 39

Yunsoo Kim v. The Korea Times Los Angeles, Inc.

Case No. 21STCV01458

Order to Show Cause and Motion for Attorney’s Fees

BACKGROUND

            On July 14, 2021, the Court denied Defendant’s special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as an anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal for the Second District, Division Seven, reversed this Court’s decision and ordered this Court to enter a new order granting the motion.  The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss this case with prejudice.  Plaintiff’s counsel has not demonstrated any good cause.  Defendant filed two motions for attorney’s fees, one seeking $72,543 for the anti-SLAPP motion before the Superior Court, and one seeking $49,947 for the appeal.  The Court grants both motions with modifications.

LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs, per Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c).  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 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.)

DISCUSSION

            A.        Proceedings Before Superior Court

1.         Billing Rates

            Mark T. Hansen’s rate on this matter was $520 per hour.  (See Declaration of Mark T. Hansen, ¶ 5.)  David Yang’s rate on this matter was $410 per hour.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  The Court finds that these rates are reasonable, given the respective attorney’s experience and the prevailing rates in the community.  The paralegal’s rate was $200 per hour, which is reasonable. 

                        2.         Hours

            Defendant’s counsel did not add the number of hours billed by each attorney, which complicated the Court’s analysis.  The Court’s review of the billing records reveals that Mark Hansen spent 28.6 hours and David Yang spent 124.3 hours on the matters before the Superior Court.  These amounts total $14,872 and $50,963, respectively, for a total of $65,835.  The Court finds that the staffing was reasonable.  There were only two attorneys on this matter, and the lower-billing attorney performed approximately the majority of the work. 

                        3.         Reductions

The Court has no reductions with respect to Mark Hanson’s hours.  The Court applies a reduction to David Yang’s hours.  Mr. Yang spent 6.8 hours preparing for the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion even though he did not argue the motion.  Moreover, Mr. Yang spent 41.2 hours conducting legal research in advance of the anti-SLAPP motion, and 52.9 hours preparing the anti-SLAPP motion.  These amounts reflect some inefficiencies.  Therefore, the Court applies a 25% reduction to Mr. Yang’s hours.

                        4.         Additions

            Defendant’s counsel’s billing records omit any time for appearing at the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion.  Therefore, the Court adds two hours to each of Mark Hanson and David Yang’s time on this case.

                        5.         Motion for Attorney’s Fees

            Defendant’s counsel filed two motions for attorney’s fees, one for the proceedings in the Superior Court and one for the appeal.  Two motions were not necessary, as all issues could have been addressed in one motion. 

                        6.         Total

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court approves 30.6 hours for Mark Hanson at a billing rate of $520 per hour for a total of $15,912.  The Court approves a total of 95.2 hours for David Yang (based upon 124.3 hours, reduced by 25% to 93.2 hours, and then increased by two hours for a total of 95.2 hours) at a billing rate of $410 for a total of $39,032.  In total, Defendant shall pay Plaintiff, by and through counsel, a total of $54,944 in attorney’s fees for the proceedings in the Superior Court.

            B.        Appeal and Post-Appellate Proceedings

1.         Legal Issues

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to recovery their attorneys’ fees on appeal.  While the Court of Appeal awarded Defendants their costs on appeal, the Court of Appeal did not explicitly award Defendants their attorneys’ fees on appeal.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (d)(2).)  Nevertheless, Defendants are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees for the appeal as a matter of law.  The California Supreme Court has recognized: “[T]he general principle that statutes authorizing attorney fee awards in lower tribunals include attorney fees incurred on appeals of decisions from those lower tribunals.”  (See Morcos v. Board of Retirement of County of Los Angeles Employees' Retirement Ass'n (1990) 51 Cal.3d 924, 927.)  Attorney’s fees are mandatory for a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion, per Code of Civil Procedure section 425(c)(1).  Therefore, attorney’s fees are mandatory for the appeal (which presumably is why the Court of Appeal did not expressly order them).  Plaintiff cites Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni Holstedt & Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.15, 21.  In fact, that case supports Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees, recognizing that “[a] statute authorizing an attorney fee award at the trial court level includes appellate attorney fees unless the statute specifically provides otherwise” and that “[section 425.16(c)] does not preclude recovery of appellate attorney fees by a prevailing defendant-respondent; hence they are recoverable.”  (Ibid.)  Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees relating to the appeal. 

2.         Billing Rates

            Mark T. Hansen’s rate on this matter was $520 per hour.  (See Declaration of Mark T. Hansen, ¶ 5.)  David Yang’s rate on this matter was $410 per hour.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  The Court finds that these rates are reasonable, given the respective attorney’s experience and the prevailing rates in the community.  The paralegal’s rate was $200 per hour, which is reasonable. 

                        3.         Hours

            Defendant’s counsel did not add the number of hours billed by each attorney, which complicated the Court’s analysis.  The Court’s review of the billing records reveals that Mark Hanson spent 64 hours and David Yang spent 25.7 hours on the appeal.  These amounts total $33,280 and $10,537, respectively.  A paralegal spent 0.6 hours on the appeal, which is an additional $120.  Therefore, the total amount supported by the billing records is $43,937.  The Court finds that the staffing was reasonable and efficient.  There were only two attorneys on this matter.  The Court is not concerned that the senior partner performed the majority of the work, given the nature of appellate work. 

                        4.         Reductions     

            The Court finds that no reductions are necessary.  However, the final three entries for Mark Hanson appear to be duplicated.  Therefore, the Court counted only one of each entry in totaling the hours on this case.

                        5.         Additions

            The Court finds that no additions would be appropriate.

                        6.         Motion for Attorney’s Fees

            As discussed, the Court authorizes fees for only one motion for attorney’s fees, as much of the work was unnecessarily duplicated.  The Court authorizes eight hours at a rate of $410 per hour and two hours at a rate of $520 per hour, for a total of $4,320.

                        7.         Total

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court approves attorney’s fees for the appeal and the instant motion in the amount of $48,257.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court grants Defendant’s special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and dismisses this case with prejudice.

            2.         The Court grants Defendant’s counsel’s motions for attorney’s fees with modifications.

            3.         The Court orders Plaintiff to pay Defendant attorney’s fees in the amount of $103,201 within ninety (90) days.

            4.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.