569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc.
6 Cal. App. 5th 426
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (BAD), for unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage; BAD moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).
- The trial court granted BAD's anti‑SLAPP motion as to BAD and BAD sought attorney fees and costs under § 425.16(c)(1), claiming $152,529.15. Plaintiffs did not dispute entitlement but challenged the amount as excessive.
- BAD's fee submission claimed high hourly rates ($750 for lead counsel; $350 for fifth‑year associates) and ~300 total hours (merits + fees on fees). Plaintiffs submitted contrary rate and hours evidence.
- The trial court reduced the reasonable hourly rate to $275 (drawing on an award to separate counsel in the same litigation), culled the submitted time entries for non‑SLAPP work, duplication, vague/block billing, and unnecessary tasks, and awarded $28,290 in fees (plus costs totaling $30,752.86).
- BAD appealed the reduced award as an abuse of discretion; the Court of Appeal affirmed, applying the lodestar method and deferring to the trial court’s factual evaluations about rates, hours, and reductions for padding/irrelevant work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper hourly rate for lodestar | Trial court rate ($275) is reasonable based on local market and comparable awards | BAD: trial court should have used higher rates shown by its expert ($750/$350) | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; it could credit plaintiff evidence and its own familiarity with local rates and use a blended rate |
| Proper number of compensable hours | Many billed hours were unrelated, duplicative, vague or block‑billed and therefore reduceable | BAD: court erred by reducing hours below submitted totals without detailed mathematical apportionment | Court: reductions were supported; trial court permissibly culled entries for non‑SLAPP work, duplication, padding; no detailed itemization required |
| Inclusion of work directed at other defendants (e.g., demurrer; tasks overlapping Tisdale) | Such work was not reasonably necessary to extract BAD from baseless suit and thus not compensable under anti‑SLAPP fee rule | BAD: work was inextricably intertwined with BAD’s anti‑SLAPP defense and therefore recoverable | Court: trial court reasonably concluded much of that work was unrelated or duplicative given separate representation of other defendants; exclusion was proper |
| Standard of appellate review | Fee award should be reviewed de novo (per BAD) | Trial court’s lodestar application and factual findings reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court: legal standards reviewed de novo but the fee determinations (rates/hours adjustments) reviewed for abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (describing anti‑SLAPP statute and procedure)
- Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. 2004) (burden shifting on anti‑SLAPP motions)
- Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, 181 Cal.App.4th 664 (Cal. Ct. App.) (anti‑SLAPP burden and standards)
- Cabral v. Martins, 177 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App.) (lodestar method for anti‑SLAPP fee awards)
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App.) (need to document hours/rates)
- Jackson v. Yarbray, 179 Cal.App.4th 75 (Cal. Ct. App.) (award must reasonably compensate prevailing anti‑SLAPP defendant)
- Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, 141 Cal.App.4th 15 (Cal. Ct. App.) (fees limited to work "in connection with" the anti‑SLAPP motion)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for fee amount; trial court best positioned to value services)
- Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court may deny or reduce fees for unreasonably inflated requests; disallow non‑SLAPP tasks)
- McKenzie v. Ford Motor Co., 238 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reversal warranted where factual basis for reductions is unsupported)