National Funding, Inc. v. AAA Air Conditioning and Heating Services, Inc.

Cal.App.5th 770, 782, citing Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607, Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 112, 125-126, and Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 189, [“a reasoned explanation required in an expert declaration filed in opposition to a summary judgment motion need not be as detailed or extensive as that required in expert testimony presented in support of a summary judgment motion or at trial”].)

Based on the conflicting expert declarations, the Court finds a question of fact exists as to breach and causation.

Defendant’s Objections to Meredith Declaration are OVERRULED.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 2 National Before the Court is an unopposed motion to quash service of the Funding, Inc. summons and complaint filed by defendant Mortaza Sayed v. AAA Air (Defendant). Conditioning and Heating A motion to quash service of the summons can be brought for lack Services, Inc. of personal jurisdiction based on improper service of process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (a)(1); Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) The Court already determined service was improper when it vacated the default and default judgment against Defendant. (ROA 104.)

Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling. 3 Tumarin v. Before the Court is a motion for attorney fees and costs filed by Birch Strategic plaintiff/cross-defendant Inna Tumarin (Cross-Defendant). For the Capital, LLC reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $30,038.25.

The Court determined cross-defendant is the prevailing party the the anti-SLAPP motion such that she is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees under Section 425.16, subdivision (c). (ROA 71.)

“A prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to seek fees and costs ‘incurred in connection with’ the anti-SLAPP motion itself, but is not entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs incurred for the entire action.” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 433.)

“The California Supreme Court has upheld the lodestar method for determining the appropriate amount of attorney fees for a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion.” (Mann v. Quality Old Times Serv., Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 342.) Under this method, a court assesses attorneys’ fees by first determining the time spent and the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (Ibid.) The court next determines whether that lodestar figure should be adjusted based on various relevant factors. (Ibid.)