However, Costs Award Reversed Because It Was Untimely Filed And Prejudiced Plaintiff.
In Residual Income Opportunities, Inc. v. Cynergy Data, LLC, Case No. B289219 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 29, 2019) (unpublished), the defense won a SLAPP motion, filing for recovery of costs to the tune of $3,567.77 and moving for attorney’s fees totaling $53,915.50. The trial judge denied plaintiff’s motion to tax costs and rejected its opposition arguments by awarding fees as requested by the defense. Plaintiff appealed, obtaining no change on the fee award but obtaining a reversal of the costs award.
Attorney’s Fees Award. Plaintiff first argued the fee motion was untimely, because it was filed 61 days after notice of entry of the SLAPP order. The appellate court disagreed, because the 60-day deadline under CRC 3.1702 was extended two court days pursuant to CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B). The amount of the award was no abuse of discretion, because (1) the trial court was in the best position to reduce for any duplication, which was not done; (2) paralegals can be compensated and do not have to show their licenses as part of any fee request; (3) the work descriptions in submitted billings were not vague; and (4) $330-790 hourly rates were reasonable for L.A.-venued work, especially given the defense attorneys made a voluntary 15% across-the-board reduction. Fee award affirmed.
Costs Award. The filing was determined to be untimely, coming 46 days after service of a notice of entry of the SLAPP grant (which acted to dismiss the extant complaint as against Cynergy). This was beyond the 15-day deadline set forth in CRC 3.1700(a)(1). Cynergy argued that the minute order dismissing the case was unsigned such that time to file was extended, but the appellate court determined that there was a SLAPP grant order which was signed, a document qualifying as a judgment triggering the 15-day costs filing deadline. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 581d, 577.) Although a trial judge can extend the 15-day deadline for up to another 30 days, the 46 days lapse divested authority from the trial court to entertain the costs request. But, that brought the costs issue to the ultimate question of whether entertaining the costs bill was prejudicial. The appellate panel concluded that it was, because the costs bill included demurrer expenses which it did not find to be related to the SLAPP motion work, not embracing reasoning otherwise in Metabolife Intern., Inc. v. Wornick, 213 F. Supp.2d 1220 (S.D. Cal. 2002). Costs award reversed.
HAT TIP—The main basis for the appeal was the fees award. Congratulations to Joshua R. Mandell and Alicia Y. Hou of Ackerman for sustaining the fee award for Cynergy on appeal.
Comments