2012-00136720-CU-WT

Arthur Hernandez vs. Los Rios Community College District

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Attorney Fees

Filed By: Sherman, Jason M.

Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to C.C.P., sec. 425.16(c) is
GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged 16 causes of action against defendants.
Defendants’ motion to strike all causes of action except the 2nd for sexual harassment

th
and the 15 for violations of the Labor Code sec. 510 and 1194 was granted as
requested, by this Court on August 27, 2013.

As the prevailing parties on Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike, defendants are
entitled to a mandatory award of attorneys’ fees and costs, including those incurred in
both the prior anti-SLAPP motion and this motion for fees.

Defendants request an award of $29,249.48, representing $28,248.00 in fees and
$1,001.48 in costs.

The relevant factors to be considered by the court include: (1) the novelty and difficulty
of the questions involved, and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to
which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; (3) the
contingent nature of the fee award; (4) the fact that an award against the state would
ultimately fall upon the taxpayers; (5) the fact that the attorneys in question received
public or charitable funding; (6) the fact that the monies awarded would inure not to the
individual benefit of the attorneys involved but the organizations by which they are
employed; and (7) the fact that in the court’s view the two law firms involved had
approximately an equal share in the success of the litigation. Serrano v. Priest (1977)
20 Cal. 3d 25, 49.
Here, moving parties rely on factors (1), (4) and (6) in support of their fee award.

The hourly rate of $175/hour is charged as defense counsel’s customary billing rate for
public entity litigation. The Court finds that this rate is reasonable for the Sacramento
community.

The total hours spent, 267, related to the anti-SLAPP motion and the motion for
attorneys’ fees, is also reasonable. Aside from the enormity of the issues raised in the
complaint, Plaintiffs forced an increase in the hours spent by defense by plaintiffs’
unsuccessful attempt to file a First Amended Complaint to moot the anti-SLAPP
motion.

In opposition, plaintiffs challenge the hours spent on the anti-SLAPP motion, asserting
that moving party has billed for two demurrers and a motion to strike, a C.C.P., sec.
170.6 motion as to Judge Cadei, review and analysis of the DFEH complaint, etc.

The Court is satisfied by the explanation provided in reply that only the anti-SLAPP
motion, and those matters necessarily related to it, were included in the hours billed.

The Court finds that the number and complexity of the issues which were addressed
for each of the causes of action justifies the total number of hours billed, and the
request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in the full amount
requested.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.