Hogan v. Mohlenbrok et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge John A. Mendez on 03/04/25 GRANTING 15 Mohlenbrok's Motion for Attorney Fees; plaintiff is ORDERED to pay Mohlenbrok $15,268.50. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RU HOGAN,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ROCKLIN, and DOES 1
THROUGH 100,

ORDER GRANTING DAVID
MOHLENBROK’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendants.

14
15

No. 2:24-cv-03566-JAM-SCR

Before the Court is David Mohlenbrok’s (“Mohlenbrok”) motion

16

for attorney’s fees.

17

(“Plaintiff”) has failed to file a timely opposition to

18

Mohlenbrok’s motion.

19

construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as a non-opposition to

20

the motion.

21

Mohlenbrok’s motion.

22

See Mot., ECF No. 15.

Ru Hogan

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the Court

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

Mohlenbrok brought a motion to strike three causes of action

23

under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

24

No. 5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16.

25

and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26

15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

27

that dismissed Mohlenbrok as a defendant in this action.

28

at 2, ECF No. 9.
1

See Mot. to Strike, ECF

In response to the motion,

See FAC

1

California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides that “a prevailing

2

defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to

3

recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.”

4

Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1).

5

dismissed Mohlenbrok, the Court retains the authority to decide

6

the present motion on the merits.

7

Ellis v. Yang, 178 Cal.App.4th 869, 879 (2009) (“[T]he anti-SLAPP

8

statute . . . anticipates circumstances in which parties dismiss

9

their cases while motions to strike are pending.

10

circumstances, the trial court is given the limited jurisdiction

11

to rule on the merits of the motion in order to decide if it

12

should award attorney fees and costs to the defendants.”).

13

a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a defendant, a “presumption”

14

arises that the dismissed defendant is a prevailing party for

15

purposes of attorney’s fees.

16

App. 4th 94, 107 (1998).

17

showing that plaintiff “realized its objectives in the

18

litigation,” such as through a settlement or other means.

Cal. Code

Even though Plaintiff has voluntarily

See Law Offices of Andrew L.

In such

Where

See Coltrain v. Shewalter, 66 Cal.

This presumption can be rebutted by a

Id.

19

Here, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Mohlenbrok, which

20

creates the presumption that Mohlenbrok is the prevailing party

21

from his motion to strike.

22

evidence that Plaintiff “realized [her] objectives in the

23

litigation.”

24

Plaintiff settled or obtained another benefit from bringing her

25

prior motion that named Mohlenbrok as a defendant.

26

Court finds that Mohlenbrok is the prevailing party and entitled

27

to attorney’s fees and costs.

28

///

As Mohlenbrok explains, there is no

See Mot. at 5-6; see id.

2

There is no evidence that

As such, the

1

Though Mohlenbrok jointly brought the motion to strike with

2

Defendant City of Rocklin, he argues that Plaintiff should pay

3

all attorney’s fees associated with the motion.

4

The Court agrees.

Mohlenbrok and Defendant are represented by

5

the same counsel.

“[A]llocation among jointly represented

6

parties is not required when the liability of the parties is so

7

factually interrelated that it would have been impossible to

8

separate the activities . . . into compensable and noncompensable

9

time units.”

10

809, 830 (2013) (cleaned up).

11

the center of this controversy, his and Defendant City of

12

Rocklin’s “is so factually interrelated that it would have been

13

impossible” to allocate attorney’s fees for just Mohlenbrok.

14

id.; see FAC ¶¶ 6-12.

15

recover all fees associated with the motion the strike.

Finally,

16

the Court finds Mohlenbrok’s requested fees reasonable.

See Mot.

17

at 8.

18

Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver, 219 Cal. App. 4th

attorney’s fees.

20

$15,268.50.

22

Because Mohlenbrok’s conduct is at

See

Mohlenbrok is therefore entitled to

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mohlenbrok’s motion for

19

21

See Mot. at 7.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay Mohlenbrok

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2025

23
24
25
26
27
28
3