ITN Flix, LLC v. Gloria Hinojosa, 2:14-cv-08797

Plaintiffs (ITN Flix, LLC, et al.) sued Defendants including Robert Rodriguez and associated production entities; Defendants filed an anti‑SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16.
The district court initially dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint; the Ninth Circuit remanded and instructed the court to consider fee entitlement if the anti‑SLAPP motion prevailed.
On August 6, 2019 the court granted in part Defendants’ anti‑SLAPP motion, struck multiple causes of action as arising from protected speech, and recognized Defendants’ entitlement to fees and costs.
Defendants moved for $341,778.19 in attorneys’ fees and $1,595.54 in costs; Plaintiffs conceded Defendants partially prevailed and accepted the hourly rates but challenged the reasonableness of hours and sought a substantially lower award.
The court applied the lodestar approach and a “global” reasonableness review (citing Fox v. Vice), reduced fee awards for excessive, vague, or duplicative billing, and allowed recovery of appellate and “fees on fees.”
Conclusion: the court granted the motion in part, awarding $186,777.90 in attorneys’ fees and $1,595.54 in costs to Defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to fees under anti‑SLAPP	Plaintiffs conceded Defendants partially prevailed but disputed scope of recoverable fees	Defendants argued they prevailed on the anti‑SLAPP motion and are entitled to mandatory fees and costs	Defendants are prevailing parties and entitled to fees and costs under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16
Reasonableness of hours for initial and renewed anti‑SLAPP motions	Hours were excessive, duplicative, and could have been limited to pleading challenge; proposed large reductions	Hours were necessary; submitted detailed time records and a voluntary 5% reduction	Court found block billing, duplication, vagueness; reduced combined anti‑SLAPP/renewed motion fees by 50%, awarding $64,641.81
Reasonableness of hours for appellate proceedings	Appellate hours were excessive and duplicative; requested ~45% reduction	Submitted voluminous time entries for appellate work and argued necessity	Court applied 45% reduction to appellate hours and awarded $105,291.07 for appellate work
Reasonableness of hours for fee motion and recoverable costs	Fee‐motion hours were excessive given counsel’s experience; sought ~20% reduction; agreed costs recoverable	Defendants sought fees for fee motion and $1,595.54 in substantiated costs	Court reduced fee‑motion fees by 20%, awarding $16,854.02; awarded $1,595.54 in costs

Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) (successful anti‑SLAPP defendants are entitled to mandatory attorney fees)
Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (California anti‑SLAPP statute applies in federal court under Erie)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (district courts may use a global, ‘‘rough justice’’ approach to fee awards)
Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (lodestar method for calculating reasonable fees)
Welch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (district courts may reduce fees for block‑billed or excessive hours)
Fischer v. SJB‑P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (courts may reduce fees for poorly documented billing)
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal. App.4th 1315 (2008) (considerations on overstaffing and reasonableness of counsel time)
Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (1982) (court may deny or reduce fees if requested amount is outrageously unreasonable)