CIV525758 N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC. VS. HAE-SUK LEE, ET AL.

N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC. BISHOP RANCH GATEWAY INC.
BRIAN H. SONG PRO/PER

N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC.’S MOTION TO FIX AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS UNDDER CCP 425.16(C)(1) (ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE) TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs under CCP § 425.1(c)(1) is GRANTED in the amount of $13,451.50.

Cross-Complainant Lee contends, first, that the Cross-Defendants “represented themselves, and, thus should not be allowed to recover attorney’s fees for their time.” Opposition, p.4. Cross-Defendant NAS, however, is not an attorney and did not represent itself. Cross-complainant provides no authority supporting apportionment of fees between attorney and non-attorney parties when those parties jointly file and prevail on an antiSLAPP motion to strike. See Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal. App. 4th 510, 525, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 381, 393 (2005) (“Because an attorney-client relationship existed between the prevailing defendants and Hamilton, Trope does not preclude the award of attorney fees merely because Hamilton was a codefendant with the nonattorney clients to whom she provided legal assistance.”). In any case, such apportionment does not appear to be possible in this case.

The court finds, however, that the fees sought by Cross-Defendants are not reasonable. Counsel originally estimated the fees at $10,000. The argument that counsel did not anticipate the cleverness of the arguments in opposition to the motion to strike is unpersuasive. According to counsel’s declaration, he “provided [a] discounted billing rate of $130 an hour.” Song Declaration, ¶ 6. The court finds that this is stronger evidence of the reasonableness of counsel’s fee than the Laffey Matrix attached to counsel’s declaration.

Accordingly, the court finds the reasonable rate to be $130/hr for Mr. Song and Ms. Nam. Cross-Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees is therefore granted in the amount of $11,557 (88.9 hrs x $130) for fees relating to the anti-SLAPP motion and $1,625 (12.5 hrs x $130) in fees relating to this motion, for a total of $13,182.00.

Counsel has submitted a spreadsheet claiming $2,481.25 in costs associated with the antiSLAPP and attorney fee motions. Those costs, however, include filing fees for proofs of service, postage, translation fees, courtesy copies, and a $1,000 charge for “Document Anti-SLAPP Motion (Declaration of Youngjoon Jeon).” Counsel has failed to provide authority for the award of the enumerated costs under CCP § 1033.5 or otherwise. As a result, Cross-Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $269.50, representing the amounts claimed for filing fees. The remainder of the costs requested by CrossDefendants are denied.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Cross-Defendants shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.