Filed 10/25/19 SDPB Holdings v. Taggett CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED N OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SDPB HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DAWN TAGGETT,

Defendant and Respondent.

D074991

(Super. Ct.

No. 37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Affirmed.

Segreti Law Office and Louis M. Segreti for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Small & Schena, John A. Schena and William F. Small for Defendant and Respondent.

 

SDPB Holdings LLC (SDPB) appeals the trial court’s order awarding fees and costs to defendant Dawn Taggett, claiming that the fees were excessive and that the award was motivated by bias. Finding no evidence in the record to support either argument, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In April 2017, a home buyer canceled his contract with SDPB, a real estate developer, to purchase a residential property in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego. The following month, SDPB initiated litigation against several neighbors including Taggett alleging contractual interference and defamation, among other claims. The trial court granted a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (an anti-SLAPP motion) in favor of two of Taggett’s codefendants. Taggett then filed her own anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court also granted. Shortly thereafter, Taggett filed a motion for an award of attorney fees and costs, requesting $32,360.82 in total. Following a hearing, the court entered an order awarding $26,828.41 in fees and costs, after its careful review found a few expenditures excessive.

SDPB appealed the trial court’s ruling on Taggett’s anti-SLAPP motion as well as the award of attorney fees and costs. In May 2019, this court affirmed the order granting Taggett’s anti-SLAPP motion. (SDPB Holdings LLC v. Taggett (May 24, 2019, D074323) [nonpub. opn.].)

DISCUSSION

SDPB offers two arguments for setting aside the trial court’s order awarding fees and costs. First, it claims that the court abused its discretion by awarding an amount manifestly excessive under the circumstances. (See Children’s Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 782; see also Jones v. Union Bank of California (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 542, 549 [standard of review].) On this point, SDPB suggests that the work on Taggett’s motion was merely “a largely copied effort” given that her anti-SLAPP motion was filed after her codefendants. But SDPB does not point to any specific evidence indicating that the motion papers were duplicative, save that as a general matter Taggett’s filing came second. Of course, as anti-SLAPP motions filed in the same action, the papers were necessarily similar to a certain extent. The trial court’s order reflected this dynamic in deducting 10 hours for work researching and drafting the anti-SLAPP motion and noting that “counsel was able to benefit from the [codefendants’] motion.” But SDPB has failed to show how the work of Taggett’s counsel was so duplicative of the prior motion as to incur less costs and/or fees than those awarded here. We can thus find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. (See Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487.)

Second, SDPB contends that the award of fees and costs was animated by bias, arguing that “[e]ach of the underlying anti-SLAPP orders departs from established anti-SLAPP law and other precedent in material ways, without an adequate, or even rational, explanation.” But apart from the trial court’s ruling on the substantive anti-SLAPP motion—a ruling we affirmed on appeal—SDPB offers no evidence of bias or improper motive. It simply disagrees with the trial court’s decision, which is manifestly not a basis to overturn an award of attorney fees and costs.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.

DATO, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

GUERRERO, J.