HARB VS COHEN

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME HEARING RE: MOTION FOR CVPS2404465 HARB VS COHEN ATTORNEYS FEES Tentative Ruling: Cross-Defendants’ Second Supplemental Memorandum seeks $63,490.00 in fees based on a claimed 181.95 hours allocated to the anti-SLAPP motion. Cross-Complainants’ Opposition argues the proper award is approximately $25,000 to $35,000.

The following changes are noted: Unexplained Hour Increase: In November 2025, Cross-Defendants claimed 167.1 hours total, which expressly included both anti-SLAPP work and fee-motion drafting. After the Court narrowed the scope to “anti-SLAPP only,” Cross-Defendants now claim 181.95 hours, 14.85 hours more, even though the current figure purportedly excludes fee-motion work. Cross- Defendants have not explained this discrepancy.

Bundling Fee-Motion Work into Anti-SLAPP Merits: Cross-Defendants’ own declaration admits that Category A entries include “researching and drafting the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees” and “researching and drafting the Reply to Cross-Complainants’ Opposition to that fee motion.” This directly violates the Court’s directive to list “time spent on anti-slapp only.” The approximately $7,970 in November fee-motion drafting and $5,080 in January reply work is excluded from the anti- SLAPP merits lodestar and treated separately as fees-on-fees.

Category B Allocation Contradictions: Cross-Defendants stated their methodology “erred toward attributing time to X rather than to the anti-SLAPP motion,” yet the actual Category B allocations are systematically above 50%, at 67%, 71%, 80%, 64%, and 75%. An “err toward X” methodology should produce allocations below 50%. The Court applies a uniform 50% allocation to all Category B entries.

Category D (Redacted) Entries: Cross-Defendants cannot invoke privilege to withhold billing descriptions from scrutiny and simultaneously seek recovery for those entries based on undisclosed “context.” The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended; here entries are redacted and cannot be evaluated by the opposing party or the Court, that burden is not met. All Category D entries are excluded.

Mr. Easter’s Hours: While Mr. Easter’s work falls within the permissible scope of activities under California Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3.1(c), the 99.35 hours by a disbarred attorney on a motion of this scope is excessive. Mr. Easter’s compensable hours are reduced by 25%.

The hourly rates established in the March 19, 2026 order are confirmed as follows: Attorney Vanderpool: $600/hour; Attorney Fairchild: $500/hour; Mr. Easter: $200/hour; and Paralegal Gomez: $150/hour.

Fees on Fees: Under Ketchum v. Moses, absent circumstances rendering the award unjust, fees recoverable ordinarily include compensation for all hours reasonably spent, including those necessary to establish and defend the fee claim. (24 Cal.4th 1122.) An award of attorney fees to a prevailing anti-SLAPP defendant properly includes fees incurred in connection with litigating the fee award itself. (569 East County supra 6 Cal.App.5th at 433.) The Court exercises its discretion to award a reasonable amount of fees-on-fees, but finds that the hours claimed for fee-motion work are excessive. The Court allows 16 hours total at a blended rate of $300/hour, for a fees-on-fees award of $4,800.00.