Case Name: Ali’s Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Viewfield Holdings, Inc.
Case No.: 17CV308885

Plaintiffs bring a motion for attorney’s fees incurred in bringing a Special Motion to Strike portions of Defendant’s cross-complaint, under Code of Civil Procedure §425.16. An award of attorney’s fees to a party prevailing on such a motion is mandatory under §425.16(c). As plaintiffs’ motion was unopposed in substance – defendant having filed a “Notice of No Opposition” which only objected to a prospective award of the attorney’s fees authorized by this statute – the special motion to strike was granted.

Defendant’s counsel argues the motion for fees should be denied because of plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to meet and confer, citing to the Santa Clara County Bar Association Code of Professionalism and the State Bar Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism. These guidelines are advisory and recommended, but do not overrule statutory mandates. There is no controlling legal authority that imposes a meet and confer requirement before filing a special motion to strike – as there is for other challenges to pleadings, such as demurrers, other motions to strike, and motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Court would appreciate such efforts before any motion is filed in any case, and does expect counsel to follow the Code of Professionalism at all times as appropriate attorney practice, but the Code does not have the force of law or regulation with respect to the conduct of attorneys. Absent a statutory requirement to meet and confer, there is no legal basis for the court to disregard the mandatory provisions of §425.16. The Court also recognizes that this code section imposes a time limitation within which such a motion must be filed after service of the challenged pleading.

The motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED under §425.16(c). Attorney’s fees and costs of $19,376.25 are awarded in favor of plaintiffs/cross-defendants and against defendant/cross-complainant. The Court finds that moving parties have sufficiently met their burden of establishing the amount and reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs in that amount. The Court has reduced the fee request by $1,343 for 3.4 hours of time claimed by attorney Zink, as the court finds entries on 10/24/17, 10/25/17 and 11/15/17 which begin “Attention to” are vague as to what tasks were done (11/15/17 is reduced by 1 hour); the court finds similarly regarding an entry on 10/26/17 re “Finalize strategy;” and entries on 2/12/18 and 2/13/18 appear duplicative of work done by attorney Locke.