Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Mary Dumont who is involved in the conduct being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC624522 Hearing Date: April 18, 2018 Dept: 32

JOSE MONTERROSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HILA ELIMELECH, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC624522

Hearing Date: April 18, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jose Monterrosa (“Plaintiff”) alleged a single cause of action for malicious prosecution against Defendants Hila Elimelech (“Hila”), Eli Elimelech (“Eli”), and Reza Gharakhani (“Gharakhani”) (collectively, “Defendants”). As set forth in the complaint, Plaintiff was a former employee of Defendant Eli and Sonic Towing. Plaintiff filed a wage and hour action against Sonic Towing, Eli and his wife, Hila (“Sonic Action”). Hila successfully demurred to the wage and hour action, and was dismissed from the case. Hila then filed a malicious prosecution action (“Underlying Action”) against Plaintiff Monterrosa and his counsel, Mary T. Dumont (“Dumont”). Plaintiff then asserted a malicious prosecution action against Defendants arising from the Underlying Action that was dismissed pursuant to the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motions.

After the Anti-SLAPP motions were granted, Plaintiff filed an ex-parte application for a protective order from a judgment debtor examination which was denied. (Decl. Gharakhani ¶16.) On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff then filed a petition for supersedeas. (Decl. Gharakhani ¶18.) On July 14, 2017, a bench warrant had to be issued against Plaintiff for failure to appear for the judgment debtor examination. (Decl. Gharakhani ¶21.) On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff then filed a second motion for a protective order. (Decl. Gharakhani ¶22.) The Court sanctioned Plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of $4,750.00 on September 29, 2017 (Decl. Gharakhani Exh. 6.)

On January 16, 2018, the Court of Appeal affirmed this Court’s (1) September 19, 2016 order granting Hila’s Special Motion to Strike the Complaint; (2) the September 30, 2016 order grating Eli’s Special Motion to Strike; and (3) the November 23, 2016 order granting Defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs. On January 16, 2018 the Court of Appeal granted Defendants right to recover their costs on appeal.

Defendants move for attorney’s fees under CCP §425.16(c)(1) in the amount of $45,338.76 and costs in the amount of $1,603.39 for Hila Elimelech and the same amounts for Eli Elimelech. Defendants filed joint appellate briefs, thus their respective incurred attorneys’ fees and costs were divided equally (Decl. Gharakhani ¶29.)

Defendants specifically seek fees incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s two motions for protective order, attending three court hearings, analyzing Plaintiff’s two appellate briefs, researching and preparing Defendant’s Appellate Briefs; analyzing Plaintiff’s reply brief (RJN L), preparing for and arguing before the Court of Appeal, and preparing the attorneys fees and costs motion. (Decl. Gharakhani ¶4 and 5.)

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED. (Cal. Evidence Code §452.)

DISCUSSION

A prevailing defendant as to a special motion to strike is entitled to mandatory, reasonable attorney fees and costs. (CCP §425.16(c); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1141–42.)

“The verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.) If the motion is supported by evidence, the opposing party must respond with specific evidence showing that the fees are unreasonable. (Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 560-63.) The Court has discretion to reduce fees that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time. (Horsford at 395.)

Reasonable Lodestar Fee

The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’” “[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….” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)

The Defendants move for attorney’s fees under CCP §425.16(c)(1) in the amount of $45,338.76 and costs in the amount of $1,603.39 for Hila Elimelech and the same amounts for Eli Elimelech. Defendants’ costs have been itemized in Judicial Council forms MC010 and APP-013. (Decl. Gharakhani at ¶10).

Reasonable Hourly Rate

The Defendants request an hourly rate of $475.00 for Reza Gharakhani’s work. Mr. Gharakhani has 20 years of experience as a litigator. (Decl. Gharakhani ¶¶3, 12, and 14.) The Court finds based on the evidence submitted, the complexity of the action, as well as its own knowledge of fees charged for similar legal services in Los Angeles, that the requested hourly rate is reasonable.

Reasonable Number of Hours

Mr. Gharakhani alleges that he spent 95.45 hours related to Hila’s Appellate Briefs, the two motions for protective order, to attend three hearings and prepare the instant motion. (Decl. Gharakhani ¶5.) Counsel alleges that he spent the same number of hours on Eli’s Appellate Briefs. This is a total of 190.9 hours amounting to a combined cost of $90,677.50 in attorney’s fees alone.

Plaintiff’s opposition states that Defendants’ have already been awarded $4,750 for 10 hours of work in connection with Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order as requested on August 2, 2017. (Decl. Dumont Exh. B.) Plaintiff contends that Mr. Gharakhani’s billing records are not reliable since there is a discrepancy in the fees requested in his August 2, 2017 declaration and the fees request in this motion. Plaintiff further contends that Mr. Gharakhani should not be awarded fees for this motion.

In reply, Defendants concede the request for attorney’s fees should be reduced by the $4,750 already awarded by the Court. (Reply 5:11.) The Court will not award Defendants’ fees for time previously submitted in a request for sanctions regardless of the amount of “discount” previously provided. As such the time attributed to protective orders will not be provided. Further, the Court finds the motion for attorneys fees largely duplicative of similar motions in this case and as such reduces the number of hours accordingly. The Court is otherwise satisfied by the detail and specificity of the billing records supplied by Defendant.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for attorney’s fees in the reduced amount of $76,071.25 (which is 160.15 hours at $475/hour.)