Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Sacramento court records plaintiff is represented by attorney John Cassinat whose client is being sanctioned by the court.

2017-00217076-CU-OR

Traci Reynolds vs. Bruce Palmbaum

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Attorney Fees

Filed By: Ellis, Mark E.

Defendants Bruce Palmbaum, Christo D. Bardis, Katherine Bardis and Elias “Lou” Bardis’ (collectively “Defendants”) motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is ruled upon as follows.

On 12/4/2017, the Court granted Defendants anti-SLAPP in its entirety and struck Plaintiffs’ complaint. Having prevailed on the anti-SLAPP, Defendants are entitled to their fees and costs. (CCP §425.16(c)(1).)

Defendants seek $22,285 in attorneys’ fees (for the anti-SLAPP and the instant motion) and $60 filing fee for the instant motion.

Legal Standard

Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs award to a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is mandatory. (CCP § 425.16(c).) Code of Civil Procedure §425.16(c)’s provision for attorney fees and costs does not encompass all fees and costs incurred in the entire action but is instead limited to those related directly to the underlying anti-SLAPP motion. (See, e.g., Jackson v. Yarbray (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 75, 92 (citing S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti (2006) 39 Cal.4th 374, 381.)

Analysis

Attorneys’ Fees

Defendants seek the loadstar attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,085 for 42.4 hours for work on the anti-SLAPP, and $2,200 for 7 hours of work on the instant motion.

These amounts reflect the following:

· Mark Ellis (32 years of practice): $600/hr, 27.10 hours on anti-SLAPP for $16,260.

· Mark Ellis (32 years of practice): $600/hr, 2 hours on instant motion for $1,200.

· Anthony Valenti (6 year of practice): $250/hr, 13.20 hours on anti-SLAPP for $3,300.

· Sarah Kanbar (2 years of practice): $250/hr, .1 hours on anti-SLAPP for $25.

· David Castro (4 years of practice): $250/hr, 2 hours on anti-SLAPP for $500.

· Brett Beyler (less than 1 year of practice): $200/hr, 5 hours on instant motion for $1,000.

1. Billing Rates

In determining the reasonableness of a fee award, the Court is required to calculate the lodestar amount. The Court must determine the reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours expended in this matter. A court assessing attorneys’ 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. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131.) Prevailing hourly rates serve as a basis for the lodestar. (Id.) The “reasonable hourly rate” used to calculate the lodestar is the product of a multiplicity of factors including the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case. (Id. at 1139 [citation omitted].) Attorneys’ inefficient or duplicative efforts are not subject to compensation. (Id. [citation omitted].) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Id. [citation omitted].) The reasonable market value of the attorney’s services is the measure of the reasonable hourly rate. (PLCM Group Inc . v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1094.) Generally, the reasonable hourly rate is the rate to which attorneys of like skill in the Court’s jurisdiction would typically be entitled.

(Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1132.)

Mark Ellis (“Ellis”) concedes that he charges Defendants $300 per hour, but requests $600 per hour based on his familiarity with the reasonable hourly fee for attorneys’ in Sacramento with his experience, reputation and skill in a matter such as this.

According to Ellis, his hourly billing rate for private pay (non-insurance) normally fluctuates between $300 and $600. Plaintiffs oppose arguing that no multiplier is warranted.

The Court is not convinced that Ellis is seeking a multiplier. However, the Court agrees, based on the Court’s knowledge of the rates charged in the local market, that the $600 per hour rate is excessive. The Court will reduce Ellis’ hourly rate to $350/hour which deducts $7,275 from the total amount of fees. Thus, the total amount of fees is lowered to $15,010.

2. Hours Billed

Plaintiffs challenge 5.4 hours or $1,430 billed by various attorneys for work unrelated to the anti-SLAPP. (See Opposition, 10:4-21.) The Court has reviewed the challenged hours and cannot conclude that all were unrelated to the anti-SLAPP. The Court, however, agrees that the following entries are unrelated to the anti-SLAPP:

· 12/4/2017 – .3 hours ($350/hr) for “Attention to motion to dismiss”

· 12/7/2017 – .2 hours ($250/hr) for “Attention to whether plaintiffs’ filed response to defendants’ cross-complaint”

The Court therefore strikes $155 in fees for work unrelated to the anti-SLAPP.

Plaintiffs lastly challenge 22.4 hours or $6,505 billed by various attorneys for excessive or fees not reasonably incurred. (See Opposition, 11:1-12:21.) The Court has reviewed the challenged hours and agrees that the following appear excessive or were not reasonably incurred.

· 11/02/2017 – 2.5 hours ($350/hr) for “Attention to various issues and Motion to Strike.

· 11/17/2017 – 2 hours ($350/hr) for “Attention to opposition to Motion to Strike.” According to the proof of service of the opposition, the opposition was placed in a federal express overnight envelope on 11/17/2017. (ROA 13.) Thus, it does not appear that Defendants would have received a copy of the opposition for review on the same day. Defendants’ reply does not address this issue or proffer a declaration stating that they received the opposition on 11/17/2017.

· 12/1/2017 – .2 hours ($250/hr) for “Attention to whether plaintiffs’ requested oral argument.” This is duplicative of the 12/4/2017 entry for the same.

· 12/1/2017 – .7 hours ($350/hr) for “Prepare for argument, until we received favorable tentative ruling.” This entry is premature as Ellis is preparing for oral argument before any tentative ruling was posted.

· 12/12/2017 – 2.1 hours ($350/hr) for “Attention to anti-SLAPP opposition and Reply.” The Court sees no reason why these fees were incurred when the tentative ruling became final on 12/4/2017.

The Court therefore strikes $2605 in fees for excessive fees or those not reasonably incurred.

Disposition

The Court awards $12,250 in attorneys’ fees and $60 in costs for the filing fee for the instant motion for a total of $12,310.