From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buzayan v. City of Davis

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 1, 2008
No. 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)

Opinion

No. 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD.

May 1, 2008


ORDER


Defendants City of Davis, James Hyde, Steven Pierce, Pheng Ly, Ben Hartz, Gina Anderson, David Henderson and Patricia Fong (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Public Defendants" unless otherwise indicated) have moved, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c), for an award of certain attorney's fees incurred in connection with their Special Motion to Strike, brought under § 425.16(b) and granted in part by the Court's Memorandum and Order issued August 8, 2007.

The prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike a claim arising from the defendant's exercise of free speech on a public issue, commonly referred to as an "anti-SLAPP motion", is entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. See Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1131 (2001). Fees and costs recoverable in that regard encompass both those incurred for the motion to strike itself and with respect to a subsequent application for fees. Id. at 1140-41.

SLAPP is an acronym denoting a so-called "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation".

The Public Defendants are correct in pointing out that to qualify for fees as a "prevailing party" on an anti-SLAPP motion, a defendant need not have his or her motion granted in its entirety. Instead, a defendant whose motion is even partially granted is entitled to fees as long as the motion's result is not "so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from filing the motion." Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 328, 340 (2006).

In the present matter, the Public Defendants' Special Motion to Strike contained five separate anti-SLAPP requests directed to Plaintiffs' Causes of Action for right of privacy, defamation, failure to protect private information, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Moreover, pled along with the Special Motion to Strike were two separate dismissal requests, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), directed to two other California-based causes of action, and a Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike seeking to eliminate certain paragraphs from the Complaint.

The Public Defendants were successful only in striking one of Plaintiffs' causes of action, for defamation, pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute. The rest of the free-speech challenges were denied, as were Defendants' various Rule 12(b) requests. Of a total of nineteen causes of action contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint, only a single cause of action was eliminated as a result of the Public Defendants' Motion. In addition, each of the parties seeking fees by way of the Motion presently before the Court remains a defendant in the case.

Nonetheless, in reliance on the Mann rule that even partially successful defendants can seek to recoup their legal fees, the Public Defendants now ask the Court to award $17,150.00 in attorney's fees, plus additional fees incurred in bringing the present fee application of $1,960.00, for total claimed fees of some $19,110.00. This figure was derived from gross fees of $38,143.00, less a ten percent reduction claimed by Public Defendants to be consistent with the percentage of time devoted to the Rule 12(b) motions. With respect to the remaining $34,300.00 after applying that discount, the Public Defendants argue that because the successfully challenged defamation claim was a particularly significant issue they should be entitled to both fifty percent of the net $34,300, along with the $1,960.00 in fees incurred for bringing this Motion.

The Court believes that Public Defendants' request is excessive given the fact that only one of nineteen claims was eliminated as a result of their claim. While the deleted defamation claim was undoubtedly important, the fact remains that its deletion did not fundamentally alter the complexion of this lawsuit, which remains just as fact-laden and populated by just as many of the moving Public Defendants as were embroiled in the litigation beforehand. The dispositive factor is not how much of the briefing was devoted to the stricken defamation claim, as Public Defendants appear to contend.

Instead, the applicable law states plainly that a fee award to a partially successful litigant in an anti-SLAPP motion, like Public Defendants herein, must be "commensurate with the extent to which the motion changed the nature and character of the lawsuit in a practical way." Mann, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 345.

While the Court agrees that Public Defendants' victory was not so "minimal and insignificant" to justify a refusal to deny any fees whatsoever (see Morrow v. L.A. Unified School Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 1424, 1446 (2007)), and although it concludes that Public Defendants do indeed qualify as a prevailing party in that regard, the Court cannot agree to allocate a full fifty percent (50%) of net fees as Public Defendants seek. Instead, under the rationale of Mann, and given the posture of the case before and after Public Defendants' Special Motion to Strike was adjudicated, a much lesser amount is indicated.

In granting this Motion in part, the Court finds that twenty percent (20%) is the appropriate figure in that regard, and consequently awards $6,860.00 ($34,300.00 × .20), and $392.00 as compensation for bringing this motion ($1,960.00 × .20), for a total of $7,252.00.

Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

The Court believes that fees in bringing this motion should be discounted to the same extent it concluded that the Public Defendants failed to prevail on the underlying Motion to Strike.See Schwarz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 73 F.3d 895, 909 (9th Cir. 1995), citing Comm'r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 n. 10 (1990).

Said sum shall be paid to counsel for Public Defendants not later than thirty (30) days following the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Buzayan v. City of Davis

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 1, 2008
No. 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)
Case details for

Buzayan v. City of Davis

Case Details

Full title:HALEMA BUZAYAN, as an individual; DR. JAMAL BUZAYAN, an individual; NAJAT…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 1, 2008

Citations

No. 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)