Lund v. Merrick CA4/3

Filed 5/21/14 Lund v. Merrick CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SHERRY L. LUND,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G048210

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00464163)

DOMINIQUE MERRICK, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Geoffrey T. Glass, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Bohm Matsen, James G. Bohm and Scott A. Newman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Brian M. Daucher and Adrienne W. Lee, for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from an award of attorney fees following the granting of a 1 motion made under the anti-SLAPP statute. Sherry Lund, the appellant here, prevailed on this motion in the trial court; we reversed, however, and directed the trial court to enter judgment for respondent Dominique Merrick. Merrick subsequently moved for her attorney fees, as permitted by the statute, a motion granted by the trial court. Lund has appealed on several grounds. We reverse the order granting Merrick her fees and remand the matter to the trial court. Merrick presented no admissible evidence regarding the amount of the fees. There was, therefore, no evidentiary support for the amount of the fees the trial court awarded. If Merrick wants attorney fees, she will have to renew the motion with admissible evidence. FACTS Lund sued Merrick for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Merrick filed a motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion, and Merrick appealed. We reversed and instructed the trial court to 2 grant the motion and dismiss the case. Merrick then made a motion for her attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1), for $195,866. To support her motion, Merrick filed declarations from the main billing attorneys, one partner and one associate. 3 The partner’s declaration included copies of redacted bills. The associate prepared a