Mahin Norwood v. [Defendant]

The Court has considered its rulings on Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, and reviewed the case history. The Court has also examined the billing summary attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Carl I. S. Mueller setting forth the lodestar calculations and costs.

The Court approves the hourly rates of $450 and $650 set forth in the Muller Declaration. However, the Court reads into these hourly rate experience in SLAPP motions which would account for knowledge that would be expected of counsel billing at these rates, which in turn should reduce the amount of legal research for most issues. Nonetheless, the Court acknowledges that the issues raised by the anti-SLAPP motion were more complex than an average anti-SLAPP motion. The Court finds that the reasonable amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred is $57,000 which includes the time spent on and costs incurred in bringing this fee motion. As such, Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $57,000.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants entered into an agreement to purchase Plaintiff's property and had an unlicensed contractor perform work on the property, but Defendants failed to perform under the agreement. Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Plaintiff is attempting to force a cancellation of the transaction that would strip Defendant of her contractual rights, cause forfeiture of her earnest money deposit, release the brokers and agents from liability, and deprive her of the substantial money she already spent improving and repairing the Property in reliance on representations by her agent and the transaction participants. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mahin Norwood moves to expunge the lis pendens recorded in connection with the Cross-Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING The hearing on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mahin Norwood's motion to expunge the lis pendens recorded in connection with the Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED to October 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.

Moving party indicates that the opposing party's counsel was served by e-mail. However, it appears to the Court that opposing party's counsel did not provide an e-mail address on the caption page of the Cross-Complaint or other pleadings filed with the Court. The proof of service indicates that notice of this motion was served upon [email protected] . Moving party did not demonstrate compliance with Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1010.6(b)(3), which provides: "Before first serving a represented person electronically, the person effecting service shall confirm the appropriate electronic service address for the counsel being served." This is significant because no opposition was filed, so there is no assurance that the motion was properly served.

Moving party is to immediately serve a copy of the motion and notice of the continuance by mail to the address listed on the Cross-Complaint: WHITBECK, KOOSHKI & ZREIK LLP 21515 Hawthorne Blvd. #1130 Torrance, CA 90503. | Home -->)" -->