Lynn v. Sherman et al

Filing 284

ORDER Denying Ex Parte Motion To Strike Motions For Attorneys' Fees [ECF No. 282 ]. Signed by Judge Linda Lopez on 11/17/2022. (ddf)

Case 3:19-cv-00605-LL-AHG Document 284 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.3840 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAURA LYNN HAMMETT,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

MARY E. SHERMAN, et al.

15

Case No.: 19cv605-LL-AHG
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION TO STRIKE MOTIONS
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendants.

[ECF No. 282]

16
17
18

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s ex parte Motion

19

to Strike the Motions for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Defendants Ellis Roy Stern, Alan N.

20

Goldberg, Stern and Goldberg (together, the “S&G Defendants”), and Defendants Patrick

21

C. McGarrigle and McGarrigle, Kenney & Zampiello (together, the “MKZ Defendants”)

22

(collectively the “Attorney Defendants”), filed on November 15, 2022. ECF No. 282. The

23

Attorney Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion on the same date.

24

ECF No. 283. The Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the papers and

25

without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local

26

Rule 7.1.d.1. Upon review of the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, the Court

27

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike for the reasons stated below.

28
1
19cv605-LL-AHG

Case 3:19-cv-00605-LL-AHG Document 284 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.3841 Page 2 of 4

1

I.

2

The pending motions for attorneys’ fees by the MKZ Defendants [ECF No. 270] and

3

the S&G Defendants [ECF No. 271] (together, the “fee motions”) were filed following: (1)

4

the undersigned’s September 30, 2022 order [ECF No. 266] denying Plaintiff’s motion to

5

vacate or reconsider District Judge Janis L. Sammartino’s March 23, 2020 order [ECF No.

6

111] granting the fee motions of the attorney defendants; and (2) the undersigned’s

7

September 30, 2022 order [ECF No. 267] granting the S&G Defendants’ ex parte motion

8

to file a combined motion for attorneys’ fees. The underlying order awarding attorneys’

9

fees stems from the Court’s determination that the Attorney Defendants were prevailing

10

parties under California’s anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (“anti-

11

SLAPP”) statute. ECF No. 111. The Court adopts the summary of the relevant procedural

12

history as stated in its prior order denying reconsideration of that order. ECF No. 266 at 2.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

13

II.

14

Plaintiff argues that the fee motions of the MKZ Defendants [ECF No. 270] and the

15

S&G Defendants [ECF No. 271] should be stricken for failure to combine their motions

16

pursuant to Rule 3(D) of the undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rules.1 ECF No. 282.

17

Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the “argument and relief requested in both motions are

18

substantially the same” noting that both motions state that Plaintiff’s claims were clearly

19

barred by California anti-SLAPP statute and that an attorney fee award is mandatory for

20

reasonable fees incurred in prevailing on the anti-SLAPP motion. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further

21

states that she “is not willing to do the extra work to graciously forgive the licensed

22

attorneys’ error and is asking instead that the motions be struck.” Id. at 4.

DISCUSSION

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff also calls attention to an electronic notification issue which prevented her from
receiving prompt notice of the fee motions. ECF No. 282 at 2. The Court is satisfied that
Plaintiff has resolved the notification issue and has received courtesy copies of the fee
motions as she states in the instant Motion. The Court is further satisfied that Plaintiff has
had time to review and respond to the fee motions given that the Court granted the parties’
joint motion to extend Plaintiff’s time to respond to the fee motions. ECF No. 277.

1

2
19cv605-LL-AHG

Case 3:19-cv-00605-LL-AHG Document 284 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.3842 Page 3 of 4

1

In response, the Attorney Defendants assert that Rule 3(D) does not apply to the fee

2

motions because “[w]hile some of the legal authority supporting entitlement to attorney

3

fees and costs is the same or similar in defendants’ motions, the substantive issues,

4

requested relief, and analysis for S&G Defendants and MKZ Defendants is different.” ECF

5

No. 283 at 3. They submit that the analysis of the reasonableness of fees requested is

6

different because they “were each represented by different counsel and incurred different

7

fees for different work[,]” which is further highlighted by the inclusion of fees incurred on

8

appeal in the S&G Defendants’ motion, which was explicitly authorized by the Court. Id.

9

The Attorney Defendants additionally note that to the extent the fee motions are based on

10

similar legal authority, they are scheduled for hearing on the same date, and the Attorney

11

Defendants stipulated to a continuation of both hearing dates at Plaintiff’s request. Id.

12

The Court agrees with the reasoning put forth by the Attorney Defendants. Both fee

13

motions are brought pursuant to section 425.16(c)(1) of the California Code of Civil

14

Procedure under which “a prevailing party on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to

15

recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 425.16(c)(1). Under

16

that section, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is mandatory, and “an award of fees may

17

include not only the fees incurred with respect to the underlying claim, but also the fees

18

incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees under Code of Civil Procedure section

19

425.16.” Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 1122, 1141 (2001). The anti-SLAPP statute’s fee

20

award is “designed to ‘reimburse the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in

21

extracting herself from a baseless lawsuit’ rather than to reimburse the defendant for all

22

expenses incurred in the baseless lawsuit.” 569 E. Cnty. Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry

23

Against the Dump, Inc., 6 Cal. App. 5th 426, 433 (2016) (quoting Wanland v. Law Offs. of

24

Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, 141 Cal. App. 4th 15, 22 (2006)). Ultimately, while the

25

award of fees is mandatory, “the Court has broad discretion in determining the reasonable

26

amount of attorney fees and costs to award to a prevailing defendant.” Metabolife Int’l,

27

Inc. v. Wornick, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1222 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Dove Audio, Inc. v.

28

Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, 47 Cal. App. 4th 777, 785 (1996)).
3
19cv605-LL-AHG

Case 3:19-cv-00605-LL-AHG Document 284 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.3843 Page 4 of 4

1

This Court’s prior orders already determined that the S&G Defendants and MKZ

2

Defendants were prevailing parties, based on the Court’s analysis under Coltrain v.

3

Shewalter, 66 Cal. App. 4th 94 (1998), and awarded fees to the Attorney Defendants for

4

expenses incurred up to the Court’s initial order granting fees. See ECF Nos. 111 at 48;

5

266 at 9-10. In other words, the substance of the present fee motions is not whether

6

Plaintiff’s claims against the Attorney Defendants was barred by the anti-SLAPP statute or

7

whether an award of fees is mandatory under that statute, but whether the fees sought by

8

the Attorney Defendants is reasonable. As such, Plaintiff’s contention that the fee motions

9

are substantially similar and warrant consolidated briefing is incorrect. Each of the fee

10

motions is supported by different evidence and declarations because the S&G Defendants

11

and MKZ Defendants were represented by different attorneys who performed different

12

work. See ECF Nos. 270, 271. Accordingly, this Court’s analysis of whether the Attorney

13

Defendants’ respective fee motions are reasonable is separate, and consolidated briefing is

14

not required by the undersigned’s chambers rules in this instance.

15

Additionally, Plaintiff’s contention that requiring her to respond to separate fee

16

motions would prevent her from economizing on responses and cause her to do extra work

17

are belied by her own assertion that “her response to the S & G motion will be exactly what

18

she wrote in opposition to MKZ, just changing the names.” ECF No. 282 at 2.

19

III.

20

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Strike Attorney

21

Defendants’ Motions for Attorney Fees Set for Hearing on December 2, 2022 is DENIED.

22

ECF No. 282.

23
24

CONCLUSION

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2022

25
26
27
28
4
19cv605-LL-AHG