Ritch v. Bobb
Filing 78
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Proceedings: MOTION for Mandatory Award of Attorney Fees on Anti-Slapp Motion 74 . The Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,281.73. (mg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 06-4795 CAS (JWJx) Date March 16, 2009
Title RICKY RITCH, ET AL. V. AVIVA BOBB, ET AL.
1
Plaintiffs sued the following defendants: Aviva Bobb; William MacLaughlin;
Mitchell Beckloff; Brenda Penny; Ronald Berman; James Schneiders; Lisa MacCarley;
Christopher Johnson; David Coleman; Andrea Stern-Hodges; Herman Stern; Howard
Stern; Berman & Berman; Oldman, Colley, Sallus, Gold, Birnberg & Coleman;
Russakow, Ryan & Johnson; Claudia L. Kriegenhofer; Magnolia Gardens; EncinoTarzana Regional Medical Center; Officer G. Yang; Officer A. Storga; Lee Baca; Los
Angeles County Superior Court; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department; and Does 1 to
10. On September 11, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which added as
defendants Retirement Advisors of America and Officer Astorga.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 1 of 4
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
CATHERINE JEANG Not Present N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers:) MOTION FOR MANDATORY AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION (filed
February 26, 2009)
The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of March 23, 2009, is
hereby vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises from a probate proceeding in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
On August 1, 2006, plaintiffs Ricky Ritch and Donna Ritch filed this action against
twenty-three defendants1
alleging claims for (1) perjury; (2) attorney misconduct; (3)
judicial misconduct; (4) defamation, libel, slander, and invasion of privacy; (5)
deprivation of rights and conspiracy against rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (6) extortion;
(7) false imprisonment/kidnaping; (8) battery; (9) assault; (10) conversion; (11) fraud and
Ricky Ritch et al v. Aviva Bobb et al Doc. 78
Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 06-4795 CAS (JWJx) Date March 16, 2009
Title RICKY RITCH, ET AL. V. AVIVA BOBB, ET AL.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 2 of 4
deceit; (12) false statement to a bank; (13) state civil rights violation; (14) conspiracy;
(15) obstruction of justice; (16) RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-64; (17) violation of the Hobbs
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and (18) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional harm.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants are “participants in the corruption of the
California Conservatorship System.” FAC ¶ 2.
On October 26, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or
strike plaintiff’s state law claims against them. On January 16, 2007, the Court granted
defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining federal claims against them. The
Court granted plaintiffs fifteen days’ leave to file a second amended complaint as to the
federal claims against defendants. On March 7, 2007, the Court dismissed the instant
action without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to file a second amended complaint.
On August 9, 2007, defendants Ronald Berman; James Schneiders; Lisa
MacCarley; Christopher Johnson; David Coleman; Andrea Stern-Hodges; Howard Stern;
Berman & Berman; Oldman, Cooley, Sallus, Gold; Birnberg & Coleman; and Russakow,
Ryan & Johnson filed a motion for attorney’s fees on Anti-SLAPP Motion, pursuant to
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. On September 10, 2007, the Court found and concluded
that defendants should be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court found, however,
that defendants did not adequately specify (1) the hourly rates for defense counsel, (2) the
total number of hours worked at each rate, or (3) independent evidence showing that the
requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community given the skill,
experience, and reputation of defense counsel. Accordingly, the Court denied
defendants’ motion without prejudice.
Defendants again filed a motion for attorneys’ fees on February 26, 2009.
Defendants’ motion is presently before the Court.
II. DISCUSSION
California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, commonly referred to as California’s
anti-SLAPP statute, was enacted to allow the early dismissal of “SLAPP” suits. “SLAPP
stands for ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,’ and basically refers to suits
directed at some exercise of a person’s right of free speech or petition.” Lam v. Ngo, 91
Cal. App. 4th 832, 835 n.1 (2001). Section 425.16 provides:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 06-4795 CAS (JWJx) Date March 16, 2009
Title RICKY RITCH, ET AL. V. AVIVA BOBB, ET AL.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 3 of 4
A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that
person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free
speech under the United States or California Constitution in
connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special
motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff
has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will
prevail on the claim.
Under Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16(c), “a prevailing defendant on a special motion
to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” Cal. Code Civ.
P. § 425.16(c); S.B. Beach Props. v. Berti, 39 Cal. 4th 374, 379 (2006) (“any SLAPP
defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney
fees.”).
Where fee awards are appropriate and available, “the fee applicant bears the burden
of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended
and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The Court has an
independent duty to determine whether the hours and hourly rate submitted by the fee
applicant are “reasonable,” and to reach its own “lodestar” value. The lodestar amount is
“the number of hours reasonably expended . . . multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.”
Id. at 433.
On September 11, 2007, the Court ruled that defendants should be awarded
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing their successful anti-SLAPP motion.
Defendants request a total of $15,281.73 in fees, including $8,155.00 for fees incurred
preparing the Anti-SLAPP motion, $6,770.00 for fees incurred preparing the instant
motion, and $356.73 in disbursements. In support of their motion, defendants submit the
declaration of Ronald Gold, a number of invoices for attorneys’ fees, and the declaration
of third-party attorney Martin Keleti. After careful review of the declarations and
invoices, the Court concludes that the requested rates and hours spent are reasonable.
Keleti Decl. ¶ 6; Gold Decl. ¶¶ 4-8. Defendants request $150 per hour for the work of
paralegal Scott Raphael, $400 per hour for the work of attorney David Colman, $450 per
hour for the work of attorney Ronald Gold, and $400 per hour for the work of
independent expert S. Martin Keleti. Based on the submitted evidence and the Court’s
familiarity with the rates charged by other firms in the Los Angeles legal community, the
Court concludes that the requested hourly rates are reasonable. The Court further
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 06-4795 CAS (JWJx) Date March 16, 2009
Title RICKY RITCH, ET AL. V. AVIVA BOBB, ET AL.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 4 of 4
concludes that the hours spent on this case were reasonable, given the complex nature of
the case. Keleti Decl. ¶ 6 (“The complaint against defendants was 245 pages in length
and often written in incomprehensive language . . . . alleg[ing] 11 causes of action broken
up into 52 separate counts alleging torts from slander to RICO.”). Therefore, the Court
awards defendants $15,281.73 in attorneys’ fees.
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion
for attorneys for attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,281.73.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
