Alexander Alobeydi vs Evan Graves

Case Number

23CV04147

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/03/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion for Attorney Fees

Tentative Ruling

Alexander Alobeydi v. Evan Graves

Case No. 23CV04147       

Hearing Date: May 3, 2024                                                     

HEARING:              Motion For Attorney’s Fees And Costs                                                          

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Alexander Alobeydi: Jasper L. Ozbirn, Ozbirn Law, PC

                             For Defendant Evan Graves: Jessica Dayton, ADZ Law, LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of defendant for attorney’s fees and costs is granted. The court awards attorney fees in the amount of $16,425 in favor of defendant Evan Graves and against plaintiff Alexander Alobeydi.

Background: 

On September 25, 2023, plaintiff Alexander Alobeydi (Alobeydi) filed a complaint in this matter against defendant Evan Graves (Graves), alleging nine causes of action: (1) assault; (2) battery; (3) intentional interference with economic relations; (4) negligent interference with economic relations; (5) abuse of process; (6) malicious prosecution – former criminal proceeding; (7) malicious prosecution – lack of probable cause; (8) trespass; and (9) defamation. As alleged in the complaint:

On May 21, 2022, Graves placed Alobeydi in a chokehold and held him there until Alobeydi was able to fight back enough to free himself from Graves’ grasp. (Compl., ¶ 7.) The police were called and Graves falsely reported to them that he and Alobeydi were in a domestic relationship, which they were not. (Compl., ¶ 7.) This false information led to Alobeydi being arrested on domestic violence charges which were later dropped. (Compl., ¶ 7.) As a result of his arrest based on false or misinformation provided by Graves to the police, Alobeydi was suspended from work and lost income. (Compl., ¶ 8.)

Graves filed a small claims action against Alobeydi for injuries Graves claims he sustained when Alobeydi freed himself from Graves’ chokehold (the small claims action). (Compl., ¶ 9.) Before filing the small claims action, Graves repeatedly threatened Alobeydi with legal action, demanded that Alobeydi disclose who Alobeydi was spending time with, and stated that he would make Alobeydi pay by filing legal action against Alobeydi if Alobeydi did not tell Graves who Alobeydi was spending time with. (Compl., ¶ 9.)

On November 6, 2023, the court ordered the small claims action, filed as case number 236V00720, related to the present action. (See Order dated Nov. 6, 2023.)

On December 11, 2023, Graves filed a special motion to strike the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action alleged in plaintiff’s complaint (the motion to strike) and a motion for an order awarding Graves prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs (the fee motion). Alobeydi filed oppositions to the motion to strike and the fee motion. Alobeydi also filed a motion for an order sealing the Alobeydi declaration submitted in support of Alobeydi’s opposition to the motion to strike (the motion to seal) which was not opposed by Graves.

On April 5, 2024, the court issued its Minute Order granting the motion to strike of Graves, in part, as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action alleged in the complaint. The court denied the motion to strike as to the ninth cause of action alleged in Alobeydi’s complaint. In addition, the court granted Alobeydi’s motion to seal. The court continued the hearing on the fee motion to May 3, 2024.

Analysis:

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the California Anti-SLAPP Law or anti-SLAPP statute), and subject to exceptions not applicable here, “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) Though not mandated, the trial court uses the lodestar method to determine an appropriate award of fees under the anti-SLAPP statute to ensure that the amount of the award is objective and not arbitrary. (Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 613, 620-621 (Frym); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1136 (Ketchum) [also noting that the lodestar method is not mandated under the statute].)

Under the lodestar method, the trial court multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar noncontingent work. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 1133-1134.) “The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Id. at p. 1134.) “[T]he trial court has discretion to determine the amount of reasonable fees to award based on ‘a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. [Citation.] The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.’ [Citation.]” (Frym, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at pp. 620-621.)

To support the fee motion, Graves submits the declaration of his counsel, Jessica Dayton (Dayton), who declares that she represents Graves pursuant to a written fee agreement which provides for compensation at a rate of $600 per hour plus actual costs incurred. (Dayton Decl., ¶ 3.) Dayton further states that associates working on this matter bill at $400 per hour, and paralegals bill at $250 per hour. (Ibid.) Additionally, Dayton’s office charges a 3 percent expense rate on all bills for administrative costs. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

Dayton states that she has been an attorney for nineteen years and has practiced family law and civil litigation exclusively, with a specialization in domestic violence law, for the last seventeen years. (Dayton Decl., ¶ 2.) Prior, Dayton practiced civil litigation and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Michael Farrell of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. (Ibid.) In addition, Melissa Fox (Fox) is an associate attorney with Dayton’s law firm who has practiced family law in the San Francisco Bay Area since November 2018. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

Dayton states that Fox spent approximately 21.8 hours to prepare the motion to strike. (Dayton Decl., ¶ 7.) Dayton spent approximately 4.7 hours assisting Fox which time does not include preparing the declaration submitted in support of the fee motion. (Ibid.) Dayton expects to spend four hours preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion to strike. (Ibid.) In addition, paralegals spent 5.4 hours of unspecified time. (Ibid.) Dayton anticipates that Graves will incur $435 in filing fees for the motion to strike plus a 3 percent expense rate charged by Dayton’s firm. (Ibid.) The total amount Dayton expects Graves to incur relating to the special motion to strike is $16,425. (Ibid.)

In his opposition to the motion, Alobeydi contends that he should be awarded the amount of $19,567.50 for fees and costs incurred to oppose the motion to strike on the grounds that the motion was frivolous. Apart from asserting that the motion to strike has no merit, Alobeydi offers no reasoned argument otherwise challenging the hourly rate charged or the hours expended by counsel for Graves.

The court has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, including Alobeydi’s contention that the motion to strike was frivolous warranting an award of attorney fees against Graves. (See Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Garamendi Garamendi (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1388 [“[t]he imposition of sanctions for a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion is … mandatory”].) With respect to the court’s denial of the motion to strike the ninth cause of action for defamation alleged in the complaint, the court does not find that the motion to strike as to that cause of action was frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c).)

Based on its own familiarity with the legal market and information provided by counsel for Graves, the court finds the hourly rates charged by counsel, including for paralegal services, to be reasonable for the Santa Barbara area. (In re Tobacco Cases I (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 570, 587-588 [trial court may rely on its own experience and knowledge to determine the reasonable value of attorney’s services].) The court further finds that an award of $16,425 is reasonable based on the hours spent by counsel for Graves on the motion to strike, counsel’s hourly rates, the nature of this litigation, Graves’ relative success in achieving his objective, and the manner in which the motion to strike changed the nature and character of this action in a practical way. (Id. at pp. 581-582, 587; Malin v. Singer (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1305.) Therefore, and for all reasons further discussed above, the court will grant the fee motion and award attorney fees against Alobeydi in the amount of $16,425.