Clicktide Digital Corporation vs. VPP Technologies, Inc

Now that the Court has determined that Defendants are a partially prevailing party, the Court must determine the amount of fees to award pursuant to the lodestar method. Defendants requests $22,836.50 in attorneys’ fees and $123.54 in costs.

The Court finds the $123.54 in costs reasonable and the Court GRANTS the motion as to the $123.54 in costs.

However, the Court finds that Defendants not entitled to the full $22,836.50 in attorneys’ fees requested as Defendants were only partially the prevailing party. The Court will reduce the fees associated with “[r]esearch and analysis of anti- SLAPP law as applied to Plaintiff’s claims” and “[d]rafting, filing and serving the anti SLAPP Motion and supporting documents” by 1/3 since Defendants succeeded in striking two of the three causes of action. Defendants failed to provide a sufficiently detailed breakdown of the work performed for the fees incurred and therefore the Court is unable to decipher and analyze whether the time expended or the monetary charge being made for the time expended are reasonable under the circumstances.

For example, Defendants provided a blocked-bill of 25.2 hours by Brian Bauer and 3.3 hours by Nicholas Shantar for “Drafting, filing and serving the anti SLAPP Motion and supporting documents.”

As such, the fees will be reduced by 9.3 at $495/hour ($4,603.50) and 1.1 at $475/hour ($522.50) for a total reduction of $5,126.

The motion for attorney fees is therefore GRANTED in the amount of $17,710.50 in attorney fees and $123.54 in costs.

Defendants to give notice. 105 Clicktide Digital Corporation vs. VPP Technologies, Inc, 25-01521849 Off-calendar. 106 Harris vs. City of Irvine, 25-01529084 Respondents City of Irvine, Irvine Police Department, Kailene Loza, in her official capacity as Lead Records Specialist, and Adrianna Medina, in her official capacity as Program Specialist (“Respondents”) demur to the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by petitioner Sonia Patricia Harris (“Petitioner”) for failure to state a cause of action.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Respondents’ moving papers were served on Petitioner by electronic service only. As a pro se litigant, papers must be served on Petitioner by mail unless Petitioner affirmatively agrees otherwise. Because Petitioner has filed a timely, substantive opposition to the moving papers, the Court finds any