One Involves DJ Samantha Ronson, and the Other Involves City College of San Francisco.
Everyone knows that we are in the Holidays, with client meetings and office parties abounding (even if the economy is not like it was in years past). So, we will have some Holiday fun by reporting on two recent media stories involving our favorite topic—attorney’s fees awards or settlements.
DJ Samantha Ronson, Attorney Martin Garbus, and Blogger Perez Hilton
DJ Samantha Ronson was not amused by blogosphere gossip about DJ Samantha Ronson by blogger Perez Hilton, involving a blog that linked to another Celebrity Babylon blog story [See real Babylon below]
suggesting that the cocaine found in the well-publicized Lindsay Lohan Mercedes crash in Beverly Hills in May 2007
as possibly belonging to Ms. Ronson. She turned to veteran New York attorney Martin Garbus, agreeing to hire him at a $750 hourly rate. Mr. Garbus filed a defamation lawsuit against Celebrity Babylon and Mr. Hilton. Celebrity Babylon agreed to issue a retraction and an apology in exchange for a lawsuit dismissal by Ms. Ronson, but that settlement did not interest Mr. Hilton, who proceeded to file an anti-SLAPP motion in Ms. Ronson’s Los Angeles-venued case. Afraid that she might lose the motion and be exposed to fees that must be awarded in some amount to a winning defendant like Mr. Hilton, attorney Garbus obtained Hilton’s agreement to not pursue Ms. Ronson for fees if she conceded the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion. Ms. Ronson vetoed the settlement proposal, and the trial court dismissed her case and ordered her to pay almost $85,000 in attorney’s fees to Mr. Hilton. Neither Mr. Garbus nor Ms. Ronson attended the hearing, with local lawyers hired by Garbus being the ones who sat at the law-and-motion hearing at which the anti-SLAPP motion was granted. (For a discussion of the anti-SLAPP fee shifting provision, see our category “Cases: SLAPP.”)
This was hardly the end of the story by far. Claiming attorney Garbus bungled her case, Ms. Ronson sued for malpractice (seeking damages in excess of $300,000), and Mr. Garbus countersued for recovery of almost $142,000 in fees for his unpaid legal services that his former client claimed were excessive to boot. Trial in scheduled to go in May 2009 in Los Angeles. In her defense of Mr. Garbus’ suit for nonpayment of services, Ms. Ronson claims her former attorney never mentioned the anti-SLAPP motion or the possibility she might have exposure for Mr. Hilton’s legal bills should he prevail on the motion.
This is the first malpractice suit filed against Mr. Garbus, and Mr. Hilton has been quoted as saying that all of the related litigation has increased the audience for his blog substantially.
For more details, see Harriet Ryan’s article, “Litigious DJ feeds blogger frenzy,” available for viewing at The Seattle Times’ website.
BLOG UNDERVIEW—Mr. Garbus is a well-known civil rights attorney, being involved in such publicized cases as the Lenny Bruce pornography trial, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. He also helped craft the Czech Republic’s Constitution.
City College of San Francisco
City College of San Francisco wants to build a new, $146 million high-rise campus on the boundary lines of Chinatown, North Beach, and the Financial District. However, two lawsuits were brought against it, one by a group called Neighbors for Preservation, Land Use and Community Education and the other by Montgomery Washington Limited Partnership (owners of a nearby business tower).
The first lawsuit challenged an environmental impact report for the proposed 14-story construction even though the City College trustees exempted their project from the city’s 65-foot height limit for local buildings. The College settled by paying the preservationist group $75,000 as partial reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the group.
The second lawsuit did not involve any financial payout. The College agreed to limit work hour deliveries, to provide security for late night events, and to close the campus an hour after the last classes, with the suing partnership dropping claims that the building design was not compatible with buildings in the nearby Jackson Square Historic District.
The settlements mean that construction of the new campus can proceed, with its opening slated to occur sometime in 2011 and with the ability to serve 6,500 students.
For more information on these settlements and the construction of the new college, see Jim Doyle’s article, “City College cleared to build Chinatown campus,” which is available for viewing on the SFGate.com website.