Case Number: BC527182    Hearing Date: August 05, 2014    Dept: 58

Judge Rolf M. Treu
Department 58
Hearing Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Calendar No.: 8
Case Name: Christiansen, et al. v. Gross, et al.
Case No.: BC527182 (r/t BC420456)
Motion: Motions for Attorney Fees
Moving Party: (1) Defendants Brian Goldberg, Myra Lurie, Myra Demeter, and Lisa Korbatov
(2) Defendants Dannis Woliver Kelley, Sue Ann Salmon Evans, Brian Duus, and Marilyn J. Cleveland
(3) Defendants Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Steven G. Madison; and Michael T. Lifrak
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Karen Christiansen and Strategic Concepts, LLC
Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Motion for attorney fees by Board Members and DWK Attorneys are granted as requested. Motion for attorney fees by Quinn Emanuel Attorneys is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

1. BC420456
On 8/25/09, Strategic Concepts, LLC and Karen Christiansen (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an action (BC420456) against Beverly Hills Unified School District (“BHUSD”) arising out of the provision of program and project management services pursuant to contracts, which BHUSD concluded were void pursuant to Gov’t Code § 1090 and other public contracting laws. The operative Third Amended Complaint was filed on 4/26/10 and asserts causes of action for declaratory relief and breach of contract.

On 12/14/09, BHUSD filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs, alleging that the contracts are void and unenforceable. BHUSD asserts causes of action for violations of (1) Gov’t Code § 1090, (2) Gov’t Code § 12650, (3) Education Code § 17604, (4) Gov’t Code § 4525, (5) Education Code § 17596, (6) breach of contract, (7) constructive trust, (8) unjust enrichment, (9) declaratory relief, and (10) common counts – money had and received.

2. BC527182
On 11/8/13, Plaintiffs filed an action (BC527182) against Jerry Gross; TELACU Industries, Inc.; Brian Goldberg, Myra Lurie, Myra Demeter, and Lisa Korbatov (collectively “Board Members”); Dannis Woliver Kelley, Sue Ann Salmon Evans, Brian Duus, and Marilyn J. Cleveland (collectively “DWK Attorneys”); and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Steven G. Madison, and Michael T. Lifrak (collectively “Quinn Emanuel Attorneys”) : collectively, all the defendants in the BC527182 will be referred to as “Defendants.” BC527182 arises out of the repudiation of the contracts and the initiation and Defendants’ participation in the criminal prosecution by the District Attorney’s Office against Christiansen which resulted in convictions for violations of Gov’t Code §§ 1090 and 1097, which convictions were reversed by the Court of Appeal (People v. Christiansen (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1181). BC527182 asserts causes of action for fraud and malicious prosecution: the malicious prosecution claims is brought by Christiansen against DWK Attorneys and Quinn Emanuel Attorneys only.

3. Procedural History
On 8/28/09, BHUSD filed an action (BC420811) against Plaintiffs asserting all of the COAs in BHUSD’s cross-complaint in BC420456 except the 10th COA for common counts. On 10/23/09, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint for damages against BHUSD arising out of BHUSD’s repudiation of the contracts.

On 9/21/09, the Court found BC420811 related to BC420456. On 11/10/09, the parties stipulated to consolidation of BC420811 and BC420456 for all purposes. Beginning in December 2010, BC420811 and BC420456 were stayed as a result of the criminal prosecution of Christiansen. These matters were assigned to this Court on 8/3/12. On 12/6/13, the Court found BC527182 related to BC420456.

On 3/21/14, the Court sustained demurrers filed by Gross and TELACU and granted special motions to strike filed by Board Members, DWK Attorneys, and Quinn Emmanuel Attorneys in BC527182. On 3/21/14, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the cross-complaint filed by BHUSD in BC420456 and BHUSD’s complaint filed in BC420811.

On 4/10/14, the Court granted BHUSD’s motion for a separate trial in BC420456 as to the effect of the parties’ agreements on Plaintiffs’ damages. On 4/17/14, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants in BC527182. BC420456 is set for 8/4/14 o be sent to a Long Cause Trial courtroom.

II. MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Board Members, DWK Attorneys, and Quinn Emmanuel Attorneys have filed motions for attorney fees pursuant to CCP § 425.16(c)(1) as the prevailing parties on the special motions to strike. Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1130-31. “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. The 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; see also Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1136 (approving the lodestar approach for special motions to strike).

1. Board Members and DWK Attorneys
Board Members request attorney fees and costs of $39,465.25 consisting of $33,562.50 in attorney fees and $401.75 in costs invoiced (Fenster Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 1 (invoices for other unrelated matters have been submitted but not included in the calculation)) and an additional $5,500 (consisting of 10 hours at the hourly rate of $550) expected to review the opposition, prepare a reply, and attend the hearing (Fenster Decl. ¶ 5). DWK Attorneys requests attorney fees of $37,320. Siamas Decl. ¶¶ 5-8, Ex. A. Board Members and DWK Attorneys submit sufficient evidence establishing the reasonableness of the number of hours and hourly rates. See Fenster Decl. ¶¶ 7-9; Siamas Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that the fees are excessive. See Opp’n p. 3:12-19. However, Plaintiffs fail to offer any citations or explanation as to which time entries were unreasonable or duplicative. See, e.g., Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 545. Plaintiffs assert that the task of preparing the special motions to strike were not complicated and it was unreasonable for counsel to spend more than approximately half of the time requested. Opp’n p. 3:19-4:2. However, Plaintiffs fail to submit any evidence that the hours claimed are excessive and unreasonable. See, e.g., Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 560.

2. Quinn Emanuel Attorneys
Quinn Emanuel Attorneys request attorney fees of $214,653.75. See Madison Decl. ¶¶ 3-7, Exs. 2-5 (reflecting a 25% discount of invoices sent to BHUSD pursuant to a fee arrangement with BHUSD). The parties dispute whether Quinn Emanuel Attorneys is entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (addressing Civil Code § 1717), and its progeny.

Quinn Emanuel Attorneys acknowledge that when a law firm is sued in its own right and appears through its own various members, the law firm is not entitled to attorney fees. Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1211; see also Carpenter & Zukerman v. Cohen (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 373, 386-87 (addressing partners of a law firm who are sued along with the law firm where there is no potential individual liability separate and apart from that of the law firm). Indeed, in opposition, Plaintiffs note that the rule precluding self-represented attorneys from recovering attorney fees has been applied to special motions to strike. See Taheri Law Group v. Evans (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 494.

Quinn Emanuel Attorneys argue that the concerns of Trope and its progeny do not apply in this case because Quinn Emanuel Attorneys seek to recover attorney fees actually incurred by BHUSD due to an indemnification provision in Quinn Emanuel Attorneys’ retainer agreement with BHUSD (see Madison Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 6 p. 8). Quinn Emmanuel Attorneys fail to distinguish Trope and its progeny on this basis. The necessary predicate for obtaining fees is the existence of an attorney-client relationship. Taheri Law Group, 160 Cal.App.4th at 494. However, Quinn Emanuel Attorneys request attorney fees that were incurred in defending Plaintiffs’ action filed against Quinn Emanuel Attorneys. That a contractual provision may require BHUSD to indemnify Quinn Emanuel Attorneys’ fees incurred in defending Plaintiffs’ action does not establish that Quinn Emanuel Attorneys were in an attorney-client relationship with any other party in defending Plaintiffs’ action against them. Simply put, insofar as Quinn Emanuel’s request for attorney fees incurred on the special motion to strike, it has always been representing itself,which falls directly under Trope and its progeny. Therefore, Quinn Emanuel Attorneys’ motion for attorney fees is denied.