Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV01276, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01276    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-6-23

Case #22CHCV01276

ATTORNEY FEES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Barbara Medovoy

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Prince Marboubian, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Attorney Fees

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On December 1, 2022, plaintiff Prince Marboubian filed a complaint against defendant Barbara Medovoy for breach of contract alleging said breach as a result of a “wrongful eviction.”

On March 1, 2023, the court granted the unopposed special motion to strike the complaint. On March 20, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion to vacate the March 1, 2023, and reset the hearing for May 10, 2023. On April 19, 2023, the court entered the stipulation of the parties confirming the ex parte order vacating the March 1, 2023, order and resetting the hearing for May 10, 2023. On May 10, 2023, the court reset the hearing for July 12, 2023.

On July 12, 2023, the court granted the special motion to strike the complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Barbara Medovoy moves for a $4,500 in attorney fees represented as 10 hours of work at $450/hour. The motion remains unopposed at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. The court electronic filing system shows no reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

Defendants are entitled to attorney fees as a result of successfully prevailing on the special motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141-1142.) “An award of attorney fees to a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion properly includes attorney fees incurred to litigate the special motion to strike (the merits fees) plus the fees incurred in connection with litigating the fee award itself (the fees on fees).” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 433; Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 21.)

The lodestar method for determination of fees applies in special motions to strike. (Ketchum v. Moses, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1136.)

“‘[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. [Citation.] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services.’” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)

The reasonableness of attorney fees lies within the discretion of the trial court. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.) The court makes it determination based on the 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.” (Ibid.) The court should apply an objective standard of reasonableness. (Id. at p. 1098.) “A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.)

The attorneys fees and costs recoverable are only those incurred as to the special motion to strike, and not as to other litigation events. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1383.) “[W]e conclude a defendant should not be entitled to obtain as a matter of right his or her entire attorney fees incurred on successful and unsuccessful claims merely because the attorney work on those claims was overlapping. Instead, the court should first determine the lodestar amount for the hours expended on the successful claims, and, if the work on the successful and unsuccessful causes of action was overlapping, the court should then consider the defendant's relative success on the motion in achieving his or her objective, and reduce the amount if appropriate.” (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 344–345.)

Counsel represents all hours apply to the motion: four hours in preparation of the motion to strike, two and one half hours on the reply, one half hour for the appearance, one and one half hours for the instant motion, plus an anticipated one and one half hours on any reply, if applicable, and finally an additional one half hour for an appearance on the instant motion.

The court finds the hourly fee reasonable given counsel’s experience and nature of the claim. The time spent on the special motion to strike including the reset hearing also appears reasonable as well.

The court only deducts the one and one half hours added to the fee request in that the motion remains unopposed at the time of the tentative ruling publication, and no written reply is presented. Any argument for oral reply is subsumed within the appearance hours included in the award.

The court therefore awards 8.5 hours at the $450 billable rate for a total fee of $3,825. The court also awards $120 in filing fees. Defendant to submit a judgment to the court.

Defendant to give notice.