Aiak

BF’S MOTION TO RECOVER ATTORNEYS’ FEES & COSTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 425.16 Defendants argue they are mandatory-fee prevailing parties under CCP § 425.16(c) because they successfully struck the defamation & invasion of privacy causes of action, and they seek a fee award calibrated to their partial success (claimed as ~75%). 1️⃣ CONTEXT What the case is about: — Defendants Bryan Freedman and his firm (Freedman + Taitelman, now LFTC) previously represented Travis Michael Flores in a copyright/idea-submission case against Justin Baldoni (settled and dismissed in March 2022). — Years later, Freedman represented Baldoni in separate high-profile litigation involving Blake Lively; during press coverage, Freedman issued a “clarifying” media statement about the earlier Flores litigation, asserting no wrongdoing/liability by Baldoni/Wayfarer and praising their ethics. — Flores’s spouse/estate administrator sued Defendants, pleading five causes of action: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, invasion of privacy, and defamation. 2️⃣ WHAT THIS MOTION IS & WHAT RELIEF DEFENDANTS SEEK Requested award & components: Defendants move to recover — $38,114.63 (claimed as 75% of $50,819.50 anti-SLAPP fees incurred) — $13,927.00 for litigating the fee motion to date (fees-on-fees) — $1,479.30 in costs incurred to date Total requested “presently”: $53,520.93, plus additional amounts if Plaintiff opposes and Defendants must prepare a reply and attend the fee hearing. The partial anti-SLAPP result driving allocation: Defendants emphasise — “Most” of the anti-SLAPP effort targeted the 4th and 5th causes of action (defamation & invasion of privacy) and won. — A “lesser portion” targeted “slivers” of the 1st–3rd causes of action (media-statement-based portions of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice) and lost. 3️⃣ PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND & WHAT THE COURT DECIDED ON THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION Complaint with three “bases”: The court described three categories of alleged wrongdoing across the five claims: (1) Misconduct during the original representation when Flores was a current client (contract/fiduciary/malpractice). (2) The Media Statement and related press statements as alleged breaches of duties owed to Flores as a former client. (3) Torts “going beyond” attorney duties: defamation & invasion of privacy via the Media Statement and similar statements. Defendants underscore their anti-SLAPP motion did not attack the “current-client” theory (basis 1). Step 1 — protected activity: The court held the Media Statement and similar press statements were “clearly and obviously protected” because they were statements to the media on a matter of intense public interest contributing to public discussion. Step 2 — probability of prevailing—split outcome: — Defamation & invasion of privacy: court found they “lack[ed] merit entirely,” and “fail[ed] completely,” and struck them. — Media-statement-based portions of contract/fiduciary/malpractice: the court rejected Defendants’ argument that the Media Statement could not form the basis of those portions, and denied striking them. 4️⃣ FEE ENTITLEMENT UNDER C.C.P. § 425.16(C) Mandatory fee-shifting for a prevailing anti-SLAPP defendant: Defendants invoke the statutory rule that “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover” attorney fees and costs; fees are mandatory for a successful anti-SLAPP movant and are not discretionary. Partial success still qualifies as “prevailing”: Defendants rely on case law stating: — A defendant “need not succeed in striking every challenged claim” to be a prevailing party. — Partial prevailing defendants are entitled to fees unless the result is so insignificant that no “practical benefit” was achieved. Unsuccessful portions affect amount, not the right to recover: Defendants also rely on authority that lack of success on some claims goes to the amount of fees, not the entitlement. 5️⃣ HOW DEFENDANTS JUSTIFY THE 75% ALLOCATION Their “relative success”: Defendants’ central allocation argument is: — The anti-SLAPP motion targeted only bases (2) and (3), not (1). — Defendants “completely prevailed” on basis (3) by striking the defamation & invasion privacy claims. — Defendants did not prevail on the portion attacking basis (2), but claim that portion constituted only about 25% of the anti-SLAPP motion; hence seeking 75% is appropriate. Claimed practical benefit from striking the tort claims: Defendants argue the win was substantial because it: — Eliminated an “entire set of claims and damages” — Removed factual allegations and “associated discovery,” especially damages-related discovery, reducing litigation costs going forward. Allocation when work overlaps: They cite the idea that where successful/unsuccessful work overlaps, courts look to the defendant’s relative success and consider pragmatic factors (litigation posture, narrowing issues/discovery, future costs, difficulty, etc.). 6️⃣ LODESTAR REASONABLENESS: RATES, HOURS, & PROOF Lodestar method as the baseline: Defendants state courts use the lodestar approach (reasonable hours × reasonable rate) as the starting point. Claimed rates and attorney qualifications: Defendants argue their counsel’s rates are reasonable given specialisation and market comparables: — Jean-Paul Jassy allocated rate: $795/hr — Jeffrey Payne allocated rate: $650/hr They support this with firm/attorney credentials and citations to other decisions approving similar or higher rates, plus reference to the Real Rate Report benchmarks for Los Angeles litigation. Claimed hours and record-keeping: Defendants assert the hours were reasonable and supported by contemporaneous timekeeping and itemised (redacted) billing records: — Anti-SLAPP motion: Jassy 33.1 hours, Payne 37.7 hours — Fee motion to date: Jassy 4.6 hours, Payne 15.8 hours They argue verified time records are prima facie evidence of necessity and reasonableness. Workload justification: Defendants explain the case required review of two underlying litigations and substantial evidentiary support (declarations/exhibits), and that Plaintiff “aggressively” opposed, requiring a thorough reply—arguing plaintiff cannot complain about time spent responding when litigation is tenacious. 7️⃣ FEES-ON-FEES & COSTS Fees for litigating the fee motion: Defendants seek fees-on-fees based on authority that the anti-SLAPP fee award includes time spent litigating the fee application itself. Costs: Defendants request $1,479.30 in costs to date. 8️⃣ THE FLAT-FEE ARRANGEMENT & ITS IMPLICATIONS Defendants disclose a modified contingent arrangement: — A $50,000 flat fee for the anti-SLAPP motion (papers + hearing), with the agreement counsel could seek and retain their full hourly value as a “fee enhancement” if successful; counsel would absorb losses if not. — A $10,000 flat fee for the fee motion under similar terms. They cite authority upholding recovery of full hourly fees even where the client paid only a small retainer/flat amount, and cite authority endorsing contingency enhancements as earned compensation rather than a windfall.