Robert Hunter Biden v. Garrett Ziegler
2:23-cv-07593
C.D. Cal.May 19, 2025Background
- Hunter Biden filed suit against Garrett Ziegler and ICU, LLC, alleging unauthorized access to his digital data under the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CCADFA).
- Defendants moved for attorney’s fees, arguing they were prevailing parties and that Biden’s claims were objectively baseless, especially after certain litigation milestones.
- The Court had previously allowed Biden’s complaint to proceed past the motion to dismiss, indicating facial sufficiency of the claims.
- Defendants relied in part on Biden’s voluntary dismissal as evidence that his suit was without merit.
- The Court exercised jurisdiction based on diversity, applying California law regarding attorney's fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorney's fees under CCADFA | Claims were not objectively baseless; evidence supported factual foundation | Biden’s case lacked factual foundation, especially post-February 21, 2025 | Denied; no showing of objectively baseless lawsuit |
| Whether plaintiff continued litigating after it became unfounded | Litigation was reasonably pursued, including discovery steps | Plaintiff failed to investigate, showing suit's lack of merit | Denied; sufficient basis to litigate existed |
| Voluntary dismissal as evidence of frivolousness | Dismissal was for reasons unrelated to merits | Dismissal shows realization claims lacked support | Denied; dismissal not tied to lack of claim foundation |
| Inherent court authority as basis for fees | No bad faith or vexatious conduct | Court should use inherent power for fees | Denied; narrow and inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California, 65 F.4th 1145 (9th Cir. 2023) (federal courts sitting in diversity apply forum state's law on attorney’s fees)
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal. 3d. 124 (Cal. 1979) (attorney’s fees recoverable as costs only by statute or agreement)
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013) (federal courts’ inherent power to award attorney’s fees is narrow and not applicable absent bad faith or similar conduct)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (court’s inherent authority to sanction bad faith or vexatious conduct)