Case Number: BC471055 Hearing Date: May 21, 2014 Dept: 73

Department 73
Rafael A. Ongkeko, Judge presiding

KAZI,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
ROSEN, ET AL.
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC471055

Hearing Date: 5/21/14

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
PREVAILING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR POST-APPEAL AND COLLECTION-RELATED ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS UNDER ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE

Counsel for defendants/moving parties: David Paul Bleistein (Rosen, etc.)
Counsel for plaintiffs /opposing parties: Jaime Marquart, Kevin Boyle (Baker, etc.)

Defendants Joshi and McCoy’s motion for post-appeal and collection-related attorneys’ fees and costs, etc. (filed 3/17/14) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

It is not disputed that moving parties are entitled to recover costs and attorneys’ fees related to their collection efforts and following the court of appeal’s opinion favorable to moving parties. CCP 425.16. Itemized billings and counsels’ supporting declarations have been submitted.

Collections: The total amount sought for the collections work is $17,169.66 for approximately 42 hours of work by 4 attorneys. The court finds the hourly rates, services rendered, and costs incurred are reasonable and grants this request as prayed. While the law firm may also have been beneficiaries of the work, they also represented clients on whose behalf the work was accomplished. Plaintiffs’ proposed 50% reduction is unsupported.

Appellate work: Moving parties request $62,951.09 for approximately 145 hours of work by 4 attorneys with different hourly billing rates ($175-$525/hr, or an average of $428/hr), and an additional $8,490 for 3 attorneys for “anticipated charges.” These additional anticipated charges (20 hours) have already been included in the main invoice and, to the extent that they are separately requested, are duplicative and are denied.

In opposition, plaintiffs contend the Rosen defendants are not entitled to fees for defending themselves, and even so, the fees are “unreasonable and duplicative.”

The court finds that the hourly billing rates claimed are reasonable and establishes a reasonable hourly rate at $428/hour. However, the court reduces the number of hours expended on the month-long preparation of the brief from the over 61 hours billed, to a more reasonable 45 hours. Plaintiffs’ argument that there was duplication in the work product generated by the Nemecek firm is persuasive to a certain extent- for example, of the 47 cases cited in moving parties’ brief, only 4 appear to be original citations (addressing an issue unique to the clients’ legal position on appeal). While not coincidental, this work product overlap does not necessarily mean the fees related to the briefs should be rejected. After all, moving parties still needed to put forth their own brief which of necessity would parallel that of the Nemecek firm. Forty five hours for this task are reasonable given counsels’ clear familiarity with the issues and the court’s view of what constitutes a reasonable time required for preparation of the respondent’s brief, given the lead brief having been filed about a month earlier, paving the way for moving parties’ own brief.

A further reduction due to unnecessary duplication of effort is needed for the over 24 hours expended over 4 days by two attorneys to prepare for oral argument. A reduction of 4 hours is made.

Finally, the “future time” of 20 hours is unsupported and reduced by 5 hours.

Instead of 145 hours, the court finds that 120 hours as reasonable hours towards the lodestar computation. At 120 hours, this amount of time equates to 3 weeks of a moderate 40-billable hour work week working solely on the respondents’ brief and oral argument, which was the bulk of the appellate work. As noted with the Nemecek firm’s own motion for appellate fees, the court again notes that defendants’ counsel already billed for several hundred hours at the motion level, a substantial part of which should also be banked toward the eventual appellate work. There is no solid evidence of areas of law that needed further work not previously known or performed. The overall reduction is further justified given the inherent duplication involved in the three or four-lawyer staffing and review of each other’s work, as well as in the oral argument preparation.

At $428/hour, and 120 hours, the court awards a lodestar of $51,360 for attorney’s fees and $843.09 in costs. The lodestar need not be adjusted. As awarded, the hours and services rendered as found here were reasonable and necessary.

Attorney’s fees and costs of $69,372.75 are awarded to moving parties and their counsel.

Unless waived, notice of ruling and preparation of a proposed order by moving parties.