ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief District Judge.
Defendants have filed motions for attorney's fees. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motions for attorney's fees are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint asserting twelve causes of action. Defendants Animal Protection and Rescue League ("APRL"), Bryan Pease ("Pease"), and Companion Animal Protection Society ("CAPS") each brought a special motion to strike Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. On September 11, 2014, the Court granted each Defendant's special motion to strike and directed each Defendant to file a motion for attorney's fees. The Court also gave Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint only as to Count VI, which alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
On September 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a two-page First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). On November 6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed what the Court considered as a motion for leave to amend their FAC and a proposed Second Amended Complaint. On June 12, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' FAC and denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the FAC.
On June 29, 2015, the Court ordered the Singleton Law Firm to submit papers itemizing its attorney's fees in its representation of Defendant Pease.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Defendants APRL, Pease, and CAPS each seek to recover the attorney's fees they incurred in connection with prosecuting the special motions to strike and the instant motions for attorney's fees.
As the prevailing parties on their special motions to strike, Defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c). Defendants may recover attorney's fees and costs only for the motion to strike, not the entire litigation. Christian Research Inst. v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 (2008) (citations omitted).
The amount of the prevailing party's reasonable attorney's fees is calculated by utilizing the lodestar method. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). To calculate the "lodestar," the court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable rate. Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). There is a strong presumption that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee. Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 18 (9th Cir. 1994).
However, courts may adjust the lodestar figure upward or downward based upon the following factors enunciated in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975): (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the "undesirability" of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. "Among the subsumed factors presumably taken into account in either the reasonable hours component or the reasonable rate component of the lodestar calculation are: (1) the novelty and complexity of the issues, (2) the special skill and experience of counsel, (3) the quality of representation, (4) the results obtained and (5) the contingent nature of the fee agreement." Morales, 96 F.3d at 364 n.9.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should not be granted attorney's fees because Plaintiffs have not acted in "bad faith." Doc. 71 at 3. But as the prevailing parties in their special motions to strike, Defendants are "entitled" to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c); Christian Research Inst., 165 Cal. App. 4th at 1321.
Plaintiffs do not dispute the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged or the number of hours billed by each of the attorneys who represented Defendants APRL, Pease, and CAPS.
A. Animal Protection and Rescue League ("APRL")
Defendant Animal Protection and Rescue League ("APRL") is represented by attorneys David Simon ("Simon") and Bryan Pease ("Pease"). Simon's hourly rate is $425 per hour. Pease's hourly rate is $375 per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable. See Doc. 57, Simon Decl., Exh. A.
APRL seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $67,959.38. Simon billed 40.25 hours at $425 per hour and Pease billed 75.20 hours at $375 per hour. Both attorneys requested a 1.5 lodestar multiplier to account for the contingent nature of their representation of APRL. As detailed below, the Court will not grant the full amount requested. The Court makes reductions for, among other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks and work that should not be billed to the client.
1. David Simon's Fees
Date Description Time Time Reason for
Billed Allowed Reduction
12/13/13 Review APRL 0.35 0 Vague
filing description;
presumably for
opposition to
TRO, work not
related to motion
to strike
12/13/13 Exchange 0.40 0 Vague
emails with description;
Pease re filing presumably for
and hearing opposition to
TRO, work not
related to motion
to strike
12/13/13 Review and 2.00 0 Work not related
research basis to motion to strike
for Plaintiffs'
TRO
application
12/13/13 Prepare for 0.75 0 Work not related
TRO hearing to motion to strike
12/13/13 Participate in 1.25 0 Work not related
telephone to motion to strike
hearing re TRO
1/10/14 Review 0.35 0 Work not related
Plaintiffs' to motion to strike
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
1/17/14, Review notice 0.40 0.10 Each notice was
2/5/14 of voluntary (0.20 for less than one-
dismissal each page and did not
against San voluntary require more than
Diego Humane dismissal) a minute to review
Society, City of
San Diego;
related emails
1/23/14 Review and 0.45 0 Vague
reply to description;
multiple emails presumably work
from counsel; not related to
reply to email motion to strike
from Singleton since already filed
1/30/14 Review joint 0.20 0.10 Joint motion less
motion to than two pages
extend time to long would take
respond no more than a
few minutes to
review
2/13/14 Review email 0.40 0 Vague description
from court
clerk; email
and phone call
with Pease re
same
2/14/14 Review 0.20 0.10 Scheduling a
numerous hearing should
emails re not require the
changing date requested time
of anti-SLAPP
hearing
2/18/14 Review email 0.20 0 Vague description
from court
clerk; email
Pease re same
2/22/14 Phone call with 0.20 0 Vague description
Pease
3/3/14 Phone call and 0.35 0 Vague description
email with
Pease re case
status
3/8/14, Review order 0.60 0.10 Scheduling orders
3/19/14, scheduling not substantive
3/27/14 settlement that requires time
conference and to review;
calendar calendaring
should not require
requested time
5/5/14, Emails with 0.40 0 Vague
5/6/14, Pease; review description; work
5/20/14 motion and not related to
5/24/14 orders re: motion to strike
Plaintiffs'
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
9/23/14 Download and 0.35 0 Work not related
review to motion to strike
Plaintiffs' First
Amended
Complaint and
exhibits
10/9/14 Review and 0.35 0 Work not related
reply to emails to motion to strike
from co-
counsel re
12(b)(6) motion
Simon billed approximately 7.95 hours on the motion for attorney's fees. The Court finds that 5 hours would have been sufficient to prepare the motion for attorney's fees.
2. Bryan Pease's Fees
Date Description Time Time Reason for
Billed Allowed Reduction
12/2/13, Review notice 0.20 0.10 Notice is not a
12/3/13 of deficiency (0.10 for substantive notice
from clerk each or order that
notice) requires much
rime to review
12/12/13 Review motion 4.50 0 Work not related
for TRO to motion to strike
12/12/13 Review email 0.10 0 Work not related
from court clerk to motion to strike;
vague description
12/13/13 Opposition to 3 0 Work not related
TRO to motion to strike
12/13/13 Review City of 1 0 Work not related
San Diego's to motion to strike
Opposition to
TRO
12/13/13 Hearing on 1 0 Work not related
TRO to motion to strike
12/16/13 Review order 0.20 0 Order and minute
granting joint entry not
motion to substantive that
extend time to requires time to
respond and review
"minute entry
for
proceedings"
12/11/13, Review joint 0.30 0.10 Each joint motion
12/30/13, motion to (0.10 for less than two
1/30/13 extend time to each joint pages long would
respond motion) take no more than
a minute to review
1/3/14, Review order 0.20 0 Three-sentence
2/5/14 granting joint (0.10 for order not
motion to each substantive that
extend time to order) requires time to
respond review
1/10/14 Review 2.50 0 Work not related
Plaintiffs' to motion to strike
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
1/17/14 Review order 0.20 0 Work not related
denying to motion to strike;
Plaintiffs' one-page order
attorney's would take no
motion to more than a
withdraw minute to review
1/17/14 Review 0.10 0 Work not related
Plaintiffs' to motion to strike;
attorney's notice is not
notice of substantive that
appearance requires time to
review
1/18/14, Review notice 0.20 0.10 Each notice was
2/5/14 of voluntary (0.10 for less than one-
dismissal each page and did not
against San voluntary require more than
Diego Humane dismissal) a minute to review
Society, City of
San Diego
1/23/14 Review 0.50 0 Work not related
Plaintiffs' to motion to strike
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
1/23/14 Review order 0.20 0 Work not related
to show cause to motion to strike;
re Plaintiffs' one-paragraph
attorney's order not
motion to substantive that
withdraw requires time to
review
2/6/14 Review order 0.20 0 Work not related
granting to motion to strike;
Plaintiffs' one-page order
attorney's would take no
motion to more than a
withdraw minute to review
2/14/14 Email with 0.30 0.10 Scheduling a
court clerk and hearing should
other attorneys not require the
re: scheduling requested time
hearing
2/18/14 Email with 0.20 0.10 Canceling a
court clerk and hearing should
other attorneys not require the
re: hearing off requested time
calendar
3/3/14 Email with 0.20 0.10 Asking court re
court clerk and status of order
other attorneys should not require
re: status of the requested
anti-SLAPP time
ruling
3/7/14 Review order 0.10 0 Work not related
denying as to motion to strike
moot San
Diego Humane
Society's
motion to
dismiss
4/24/14 Review order 0.20 0.10 Two-page OSC
to show cause should not require
re Plaintiffs' the requested
attorney failing time
to appear at
ENE
5/2/14 Review 0.30 0.10 One-sentence
Plaintiffs' declaration did not
attorney's require more than
declaration in a minute to review
response to
OSC
5/13/14 Phone with 0.50 0.10 Vague
clerk re: anti- description;
SLAPP hearing canceling a
off calendar, hearing should
correspond not require the
with other requested time
attorneys
5/20/14 Review order 0.10 0 Work not related
re Plaintiffs' to motion to strike
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
5/23/14 Review 0.50 0 Work not related
Plaintiffs' to motion to strike
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
6/2/14 Review order 0.10 0 Work not related
to show cause to motion to strike
re Plaintiffs'
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
7/12/14 Review order 0.10 0 Work not related
granting to motion to strike
Plaintiffs'
attorney's
motion to
withdraw
8/25/14 Review notice 0.10 0 Work not related
of substitution to motion to strike
of attorney
9/18/14 Review motion 0.10 0 Work not related
to substitute to motion to strike
attorney
9/23/14 Review 0.40 0 Work not related
Plaintiffs' First to motion to strike
Amended
Complaint
9/24/14 Meeting with 0.60 0 Work not related
Cardiff re: FAC to motion to strike
9/30/14 Review order 0.1 0 Work not related
re FAC to motion to strike
Simon projected that he would work 8 hours and Pease projected that he would work 12 hours to "draft reply papers and prepare for and participate in hearing on fee motion." The Court finds that 3 hours each would have been more than sufficient for Simon and Pease to analyze, research, and draft the reply.
The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the recovery of 23.5 hours worked by Simon at the hourly rate of $425 and 48.8 hours worked by Pease at the rate of $375, for a total of $28,287.50. The Court finds that the hourly rate provides adequate and reasonable compensation and a review of the Kerr factors does not support a lodestar multiplier.
B. Bryan Pease ("Pease")
Defendant Bryan Pease ("Pease") is represented by attorney Todd T. Cardiff ("Cardiff") and the Singleton Law Firm, APC. Cardiff's hourly rate is $350 per hour. Attorneys Gerald Singleton ("Singleton") and Jessica McHarrie ("McHarrie") and Paralegal Tyler Waters ("Waters") from the Singleton Law Firm also represented Pease. Singleton's hourly rate is $650 per hour. McHarrie's hourly rate is $175 per hour. Waters' hourly rate is $65 per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable except as to Singleton for whom the Court finds $425 to be a reasonable hourly rate (the same as for David Simon).
Pease seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $33,475.00.1 Cardiff billed 42 hours ($14,700.00) and requested a 1.3 lodestar multiplier to account for the contingent nature of his representation of Pease ($19,110.00). Cardiff also billed an additional 7 hours ($2450.00) for Pease's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Attorney's Fees. Singleton billed 8.75 hours ($5687.50), McHarrie billed 35.4 hours ($6195.00), and Waters billed 0.5 hours ($32.50). The Singleton Law Firm did not request a lodestar multiplier. As detailed below, the Court will not grant the full amount requested. The Court makes reductions for, among other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks and work that should not be billed to the client.
1. Todd T. Cardiff's Fees
Date Description Time Time Reason for
Billed Allowed Reduction
12/12/13 Telephone call 0.10 0 Vague description
with Plaintiffs'
attorney
12/13/13 Review and 1.50 0 Work not related
analyze TRO to motion to strike
12/13/13 Review and 0.40 0 Work not related
analyze to motion to strike
APRL's
Opposition to
TRO
12/13/13 Review and 0.80 0 Work not related
analyze City of to motion to strike
San Diego's
Opposition to
TRO
12/13/13 TRO hearing 3.00 0 Work not related
and travel to motion to strike
12/19/13 Review and 0.20 0 Work not related
analyze City of to motion to strike
San Diego's
discovery on
Plaintiffs
12/20/13 Review City of 0.10 0 Work not related
San Diego's to motion to strike
Notice to
Produce
1/10/14 Review and 0.50 0 Work not related
analyze to motion to strike
Plaintiffs'
attorney's
notice of
motion to
withdraw
1/31/14 Telephone call 0.30 0 Vague
with client re: description; work
12/2/13 Email to/from 0.40 0 Vague description
Maher of email before
Plaintiffs and not related to
scheduling motion to strike
2/3/14 Review 0.20 0 Work not related
stipulation for to motion to strike
City of San
Diego to
extend time to
respond
5/4/14 Review 0.60 0 Work not related
Plaintiffs' to motion to strike
attorney's
declaration re:
failure to
appear at
settlement
conference;
discuss with
client
9/23/14 Review and 0.40 0 Work not related
analyze to motion to strike
Plaintiffs' FAC
9/24/14 Discuss with 0.10 0 Work not related
paralegal to motion to strike
calendar for
filing response
to FAC; file
maintenance
9/24/14 Meeting with 0.60 0 Work not related
client to to motion to strike
discuss FAC
Cardiff billed approximately 10.7 hours on the motion for attorney's fees and stated that he anticipates spending an additional 2.5 hours on the same fee motion. The Court finds that 5 hours would have been sufficient to prepare the motion for attorney's fees.
Cardiff also billed 10 hours to draft Pease's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Attorney's Fees. The Court finds that 5 hours would have been more than sufficient to analyze, research, and draft the reply.
2. Gerald Singleton's Fees
Date Description Time Time Reason for
Billed Allowed Reduction
1/14/14 Exchanged 0.10 0 Vague description
emails with of emails and
client and work not related
emailed Tyler to motion to strike
re issues
raised by client
The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the recovery of 25 hours worked by Cardiff at the hourly rate of $350 ($8750.00). The Court finds that the hourly rate provides adequate and reasonable compensation and a review of the Kerr factors does not support a lodestar multiplier. The Court will also allow the recovery of an additional 5 hours ($1750.00) to Cardiff for drafting Pease's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Attorney's Fees. The Court allows the recovery of 8.65 hours worked by Singleton ($3676.25), 35.4 hours worked by McHarrie ($6195.00), and 0.5 hours worked by Tyler ($32.50). In sum, the Court awards a total fee award of $20,403.75.
C. Companion Animal Protection Society ("CAPS")
Defendant Companion Animal Protection Society ("CAPS") is represented by attorneys Gretel Smith ("Smith") and John T. Maher ("Maher"). Smith's hourly rate is $250 per hour. Maher's hourly rate is $350 per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable.
CAPS seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $18,087.50 (Smith billed 53.8 hours at $250 per hour and Maher billed 13.25 hours at $350 per hour).2 As detailed below, the Court will not grant the full amount requested. The Court makes reductions for, among other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks and work that should not be billed to the client.
1. Gretel Smith's Fees
Date Description Time Time Reason for
Billed Allowed Reduction
12-2-13 Email to/From 0.40 0 Vague description
Maher of email before
retainer
agreement sent
12/3/13 Telephone call 0.50 0 Not a billable task
with Maher re:
CAPS
representation
12/6/13 Draft and email 0.60 0 Not a billable task
retainer
agreement
3/19/14, Telephone call 0.60 0.10 Each call did not
4/15/14, with court clerk (0.20 for require more than
10/10/14 re: hearing each call) a few minutes
date
12/20/13, Voicemail left 0.60 0.10 Each voicemail
12/23/13, for Plaintiffs' (0.20 for should not take
1/9/14, attorney each twelve minutes;
voicemail) Vague description
re: voicemail
9/23/14 Review First 0.50 0 Work not related
Amended to motion to strike
Complaint
("FAC")
10/13/14 Draft motion to 2.40 0 Work not related
dismiss FAC to motion to strike
2. John T. Maher's Fees
Date Description Time Time Reason for
Billed Allowed Reduction
8/25/14 Emails to Smith 0.25 0 Vague description
and "DH" and of emails and not
check docket a billable task
for decision
The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the recovery of 48.4 hours worked by Smith at the hourly rate of $250 and 13 hours worked by Maher at the hourly rate of $350, for a total of $16,650.00. No upward or downward adjustment to the lodestar amount is warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants' motions for attorney's fees are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court awards Defendant Animal Protection and Rescue League attorney's fees in the amount of $28,287.50. The Court awards Defendant Bryan Pease attorney's fees in the amount of $20,403.75. The Court awards Defendant Companion Animal Protection Society attorney's fees in the amount of $16,650.00. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly against Plaintiffs jointly and severally in the above amounts.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
