Second District, Division 1 Dismisses a Plethora of Challenges.
In Erwin v. Maxwell, Case No. B217200 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff’s malicious prosecution action against her opponent and opponent’s attorney was SLAPPed, with the lower court eventually awarding defense counsel a total of $71,006.00 in attorney’s fees and costs under the mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting statute. She challenged the merits and fee awards.
Losing both on appeal.
The main challenge to the lodestar hourly rate charged by defense attorneys was that the actual rate charged to the client (or, for that matter, an insurer) was less than the claimed lodestar. That concern simply is irrelevant to the proper lodestar analysis—which focuses upon the reasonable market rates for like-situated L.A. litigation attorneys. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096, 1098 (2000) [one of our Leading Cases].)
Losing plaintiff also argued that defendants improperly charged for work done on matters unrelated to their anti-SLAPP motion, citing Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 39 Cal.App.4th 1379 (1995) for the proposition that the "unrelated" work had to be excised. Not so, said the appellate court, because Lafayette was supplanted by a later legislative amendment only requiring that the work be "in connection" with an anti-SLAPP motion—a test met in this instance. (E.g., Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 (2006); Rosenaur v. Scherer, 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 285-286 (2001).) However, the trial judge made clear that she had independently reviewed every entry and excluded any non-related SLAPP time, which certainly meant the award could not be challenged under the abuse of discretion standard. Beyond that, appellant failed to prepare an adequate appellate record, not including copies of the paperwork that she claimed was unrelated to the SLAPP motion. Finally, because the motions targeted appellant’s entire case, the entire lawsuit was subject to the anti-SLAPP defense so that all attorney’s fees were appropriate game. (Metabolife International, Inc. v. Wornick, 213 F.Supp.2d 1220, 1223 (S.D. Cal. 2002).)
The opinion affirming the fee/cost award was written by Justice Chaney on behalf of a 3-0 panel.