Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV17245, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV17245    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES (ANTI-SLAPP) IS GRANTED 

Background 

On May 6, 2020 Plaintiff in pro per Gloria Weischadle filed the instant action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA); Robert Charnboneau, Esq.; Law Offices of Robert Charboneau; and Does 1 through 50. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:  

1.               Fraud – Concealment and Willful Suppression of Material Evidence; 

2.               Evidence Tampering; 

3.               Witness Tampering; 

4.               Civil Conspiracy; 

5.               Conspiracy In-Concert; 

6.               Aiding and Abetting; 

7.               Defamation; 

8.               False Representation; 

9.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional, Physical, and Mental Distress; 

10.            Gross Negligence; and 

11.            Breach of Fiduciary Duty.  

On November 10, 2020, the Court granted LAWA’s Anti-SLAPP Motion in its entirety, striking Plaintiff’s Complaint. Judgment was entered on December 07, 2020. 

On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. The Appeal Court affirmed this Court’s Judgment on June 14, 2022. The case was remitted back to the Court on August 24, 2022. 

On September 08, 2022, Defendant LAWA filed a Motion for Attorney’s fees incurred in connection with Plaintiff’s unsuccessful appeals of the order granting Defendants anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike and the related order granting costs and fees based on the successful anti-SLAPP motion. 

Plaintiff filed opposing papers on September 28, 2022. Defendant LAWA filed a reply on October 04, 2022. 

Legal Standard 

Pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c), a prevailing defendant is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the motion. Under CRC 3.1702 and CRC 8.104, a request for attorneys’ fees must be made within 60 days of service of the notice of entry of judgment. A defendant may only recover fees and costs related to the motion to strike. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1383.) This includes fees associated with bringing the motion for fees. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141 (“an award of fees may include not only the fees incurred with respect to the underlying claim, but also the fees incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.”).) Additionally, “[a]ny fee award must also include those incurred on appeal. [Citation.]” (Trapp v. Naiman¿(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 113, 122.)  

Discussion 

Defendant LAWA seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $22, 059.50 and $433.20 in costs, totaling $22,492.70 for prevailing against Plaintiff on appeal under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. 

Plaintiff asserts that because of the injuries she sustained due to the incident, she has been disabled for life and could not work and earn a living since the incident. (Weischadle Decl. ¶ 5.) Accordingly, she asserts that she cannot pay the cost of attorney fees in this case. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

Therefore, Plaintiff does not challenge the reasonableness of the fees and costs, but only her ability to pay. 

The Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s financial situation; however, the Court is not aware of any case, and Plaintiff fails to cite any case, which holds that a party’s ability to pay is a factor the trial court should consider when awarding fees under section 425.16. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to recover fees and costs sought in connection with opposing Plaintiff’s appeals. 

Hourly Rate 

“The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in [her] court.” (Id.)  

The billing rate of defense counsel on this matter is $245.00 per hour. The billing rate of the associate Matilda Barseghian is $205.00 per hour. (Meehan Decl. ¶ 12.) 

The Court finds that the hourly rates requested by LAWA are reasonable. 

Reasonable Hours Incurred 

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case.”  (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)  

Defense counsel spent 79.1 hours in challenging the appeals, including reviewing, and analyzing briefs and correspondence with the appellate court. (Meehan Decl. ¶ 10.) A summary of the billing and the relevant invoices are attached as Exhibits E1 and E11. Meehan billed 76.2 hours billed at a rate of $245.00 per hour and 1.6 hours were billed at a rate of $205.00 per hour. In total, fees expended on the appeal were $18,997.00. (Id. ¶ 12.) In addition, LAWA incurred $433.00 in costs associated with the appeal, as reflected in the concurrently filed Memorandum of Costs.  

·       (76.2 hours x $245.00 = $18,669.00 and 1.6 hours x $205.00 = $328.00)

·       $18,699.00 + $328.00 = $18,997.00. 

Defense counsel at a billing rate of $245.00 per hour spent 4.0 hours drafting this fee motion and anticipates 2.5 hours analyzing Plaintiff’s opposition, 3.5 hours drafting a reply, and 2.5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing. The total fees related to this motion are $3,062.50. 

The Court finds that the hours spent on the appeals are reasonable, but the hours billed in connection with this instant fee motion are excessive. The Court awards 5.5 hours of work related to this fee motion, including reviewing opposing papers, drafting a reply, and preparing for the hearing, totaling $1,347.00. 

In total the Court awards $20,344.50 in attorney’s fees, plus $433.20 in costs totaling $20,777.70. 

·       $18,997.00 + $1,347.50 = $20,344.50 + 433.20 = $20,777.70 

Conclusion 

The Court GRANTS Defendant LAWA’s Motion for Attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $20,777.70.  The $20,777.70 will be incorporated into the Judgment entered in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff. 

Defendants to give notice.