Crawford v. City and County of San Francisco
Filing
44
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS' FEES MOTION by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 34 Motion for Attorney Fees. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2016)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
WILLIE CRAWFORD,
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
No. C 16-1301 CW
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING
ATTORNEYS' FEES
MOTION
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
et al.,
(Docket No. 34)
Defendants.
________________________________/
The City and County of San Francisco (the City) moves for
12
attorneys' fees and costs against Plaintiff Willie Crawford
13
(Crawford) following partial success on its motion to strike.
14
Court grants the City's motion.
15
The
BACKGROUND
16
Crawford's Second Amended Complaint (2AC) contains six causes
17
of action: 1) racial discrimination in violation of the California
18
Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), 2) harassment in violation
19
of FEHA, 3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, 4) violation of the
20
federal Family Medical Leave Act, 5) intentional infliction of
21
emotional distress and 6) wrongful termination in violation of
22
public policy.
23
Docket No. 1-1.
The Court granted in part the City's motion to strike
24
Crawford's state law claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.
25
Docket No. 30, Order.
26
discrimination, harassment and emotional distress claims, with
27
leave to amend.
28
Crawford's wrongful termination claim because "Crawford conceded
It granted the motion as to Crawford's
The Court also granted the motion as to
1
at oral argument that this claim is not viable."
2
Court denied the motion as to Crawford's retaliation claim, which
3
remains.
4
12, 2016 deadline.
5
Id. at 17.
The
Crawford did not file an amended complaint by its July
The City filed the instant motion for attorneys' fees on July
6
26, 2016.
7
on the papers.
The Court vacated the hearing and considers the motion
8
9
LEGAL STANDARD
California law governs attorneys' fees based on California's
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
anti-SLAPP statute.
11
(9th Cir. 2013).
12
federal court.
13
Inc., 190 F.3d 963, 972-73 (9th Cir. 1999).
14
"prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be
15
entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs."
16
Civ. Proc. Code ยง 425.16(c)(1); see also Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.
17
4th 1122, 1131 (2001) (characterizing these fees as "mandatory
18
attorney fees").
19
so as to effectuate the legislative purpose of reimbursing the
20
prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extracting herself
21
from a baseless lawsuit."
22
Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, 141 Cal.
23
App. 4th 15, 22 (2006)).
24
Graham-Sult v. Clainos, 756 F.3d 724, 751
The anti-SLAPP fee-shifting provision applies in
United States v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.,
It states that a
Cal.
The fee-shifting provision "is broadly construed
Graham-Sult, 756 F.3d at 752 (quoting
A "party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must
25
generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of
26
the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve
27
any practical benefit from bringing the motion."
28
Old Time Serv., Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 328, 340 (2006).
2
Mann v. Quality
A
1
successful defendant is also entitled to fees incurred in filing
2
the motion for attorneys' fees.
3
Courts use the lodestar method for calculating fees under the
4
anti-SLAPP fee-shifting provision.
5
6
7
Ketchum, 24 Cal. 4th at 1141.
See id. at 1136.
DISCUSSION
I.
Timeliness
Crawford first argues that the City's motion is untimely.
He
8
argues that the partial denial of the City's motion to strike was
9
a judgment because it was appealable.
Therefore, he argues, the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
City's motion was due on July 6, 2016 and was filed untimely under
11
Civil Local Rule 54-5(a), which states that "motions for awards of
12
attorney's fees by the Court must be served and filed within 14
13
days of entry of judgment by the District Court."
14
analysis is incorrect.
15
Crawford's
Crawford relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a),
16
which states that a judgment "includes a decree and any order from
17
which an appeal lies."
18
which explains that, unless a court "expressly determines that
19
there is no just reason for delay" for entering judgment on fewer
20
than all claims, adjudication of "fewer than all the claims . . .
21
does not end the action."
22
before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims."
23
Because the order that granted in part the motion to strike did
24
not adjudicate all claims, it is not a judgment.
25
However, Crawford ignores Rule 54(b),
Any order "may be revised at any time
Id.
Further, case law regarding a California anti-SLAPP motion's
26
appealability in federal court does not mandate imposing the fee
27
motion deadline under Civil Local Rule 54-5(a).
28
has held that denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion to strike
3
The Ninth Circuit
1
"remains among the class of orders for which an immediate appeal
2
is available."
3
1015 (9th Cir. 2013).
4
orders granting a motion to strike.
5
distinguished DC Comics, holding that an order granting a motion
6
to strike is not subject to the collateral order doctrine.
7
v. Hummer, 825 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
8
Further, an order that grants a motion to strike but does not
9
dispose of the whole litigation is not appealable as a final
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
decision.
DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp., 706 F.3d 1009,
However, the analysis is different for
The Ninth Circuit
Hyan
See id. at 1046-47.
Here, the City seeks fees for prevailing on the motion to
12
strike.
13
irrelevant.
14
a final decision because claims remained following the order.
15
Because the order's collateral appealability is irrelevant and its
16
final appealability is nonexistent, the fourteen-day deadline in
17
Civil Local Rule 54-5(a) does not apply.
18
19
II.
Therefore, the collateral appealability of a denial is
Additionally, the Court's order is not appealable as
Meet and Confer
Crawford argues that the City did not properly meet and
20
confer before filing this motion.
21
its motion once it became apparent that Crawford was planning on
22
opposing the motion based on timeliness.
23
The City argues that it filed
On July 25, 2016, Kevin McLaughlin, counsel for the City,
24
sent to Brian Soriano, Crawford's counsel, an email regarding the
25
instant motion.
26
and confer.
27
If you seek more time to confer, please let us know."
28
Dec. Ex. A.
The email's stated purpose was to request a meet
It stated: "We intend to file the motion tomorrow.
Soriano
Mr. Soriano requested more time and asked Mr.
4
1
McLaughlin to permit him to respond on July 27.
2
McLaughlin responded by requesting that Mr. Soriano agree to file
3
a stipulation that would extend time to file the fee motion.
4
Mr. Soriano responded that the stipulation arguably waived any
5
timeliness argument and suggested that there had been sufficient
6
time to meet and confer.
7
26.
8
letter outlining several arguments against the instant motion,
9
encouraging its withdrawal.
Id.
Id. Ex. B.
Mr.
The City filed its motion on July
The following day, Mr. Soriano sent to Mr. McLaughlin a
Id. Ex. C.
The City's counsel
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Id.
offered to hold the fee motion in abeyance pending mediation,
11
which Crawford's counsel refused.
12
Supp. Hartinger Dec. Ex. A.
"Counsel for the respective parties must meet and confer for
13
the purpose of resolving all disputed issues relating to
14
attorney's fees before making a motion for award of attorney's
15
fees."
16
must be supported by declarations or affidavits stating "that
17
counsel have met and conferred for the purpose of attempting to
18
resolve any disputes with respect to the motion or a statement
19
that no conference was held, with a certification that the
20
applying attorney made a good faith effort to arrange such a
21
conference, setting forth the reason the conference was not held."
22
Id. 54-5(b)(1).
23
opposition to the motion, which the City did not withdraw.
24
sequence of events indicates that any further conferral would not
25
have resolved the parties' disputes.
26
27
28
Civ. L.R. 54-5(a).
Unless otherwise ordered, a fee motion
Here, Mr. Soriano outlined his arguments in
This
III. Reasonableness
The Court finds, and Crawford does not dispute, that the
hourly rates attributed to each attorney are reasonable.
5
Crawford
1
argues that the fees are not reasonable because the scope of the
2
work exceeds the motion to strike and because the fee motion
3
overstates what the City's counsel accomplished.
4
A. Scope of Work
5
Crawford argues that the submitted time descriptions exceed
6
that spent preparing the anti-SLAPP motion.
7
Crawford states that the City's timesheets include "time for
8
reviewing the case file and getting up to speed," as well as
9
"multiple defense attorneys meeting with witnesses."
In particular,
Response Br.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
at 5.
11
time entries submitted relate to the motion to strike.
The Court has reviewed the time entries and finds that all
12
13
B. Success for non-SLAPP reasons
Crawford argues that the City did not actually prevail under
14
anti-SLAPP on two of the claims for which the City's motion to
15
strike was granted.
16
as not properly before the Court on the anti-SLAPP motion and the
17
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as dismissed
18
for insufficient offensiveness.
19
He characterizes the wrongful discharge claim
As the Court explained, the second step of an anti-SLAPP
20
motion to strike requires the Court to determine whether the
21
plaintiff demonstrates a probability of prevailing on the merits.
22
Order at 6.
23
Crawford did not meet that standard.
24
25
26
27
28
The Court struck both claims because, at step two,
Id. at 16-17.
The Court concludes that the number of hours requested is
reasonable.
IV.
Fee Calculation
The City is entitled to fees for prevailing on its motion to
strike with a reduction to eighty percent to reflect partial
6
1
success, that is, $34,128.
2
also entitled to the amount for fees submitted with its fee motion
3
reply brief: $3,535.00.
4
costs: $2,861.55.
7
8
The City is
Finally, the City is entitled to its
Id. Ex. G.
5
6
See Hartinger Dec. Ex. H.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the City is entitled to $37,663 in fees and $2,861.55
in costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated: September 6, 2016
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?