No Trope Problem; Trial Judge Did Reduce Requests; Attorney Declaration Of Hours Expended Suffices.
In Shames v. Peffer, Case No. D065737 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 25, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff sued two defendant attorneys personally (not their firm) for libel/prospective economic advantage interference, but was SLAPPed even though the law firm where each attorney practiced prepared the two sets of SLAPP motions. Attorneys, as prevailing defendants, were awarded $20,765 in fees out of the total amount requested as to attorney #1 as well as awarded $12,500 out of a requested $37,474 as to attorney #2.
Plaintiff appealed the fee awards, to no avail.
Plaintiff argued that the law firm represented attorneys in it, so a Trope violation occurred and no fees were owed. Nope—defendant attorneys were sued personally, not as firm representatives, so their individual interests could be protected by other lawyers in their firm. (Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co., 87 Cal.App.4th 212, 223 (2001); Soni v. Wellmake Enterprise Co. Ltd., 224 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1488 (2014).)
As far as reasonableness of fees, the trial judge did discount for duplicative work between the two attorneys’ SLAPP motions, including a substantial reduction for attorney #2’s fees— inefficiency/duplicative efforts were indeed factored into the ultimate awards.
Finally, an attorney declaration about hours worked sufficed as proper substantiation in a state court fee motion—nothing more was required, although we would add more detail is even better. (Martino v. Denevi, 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559 (1986).)