Wong v. Wong CA1/5

Filed 3/3/21 Wong v. Wong CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

JUSTIN WONG, A159009 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. HG17858973) ALBERT Y. WONG, Defendant and Respondent.

Justin Wong filed a lawsuit against his father, Albert Wong.1 The trial court struck some of Justin’s causes of action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,2 and awarded attorney fees and costs to Albert. Justin appeals from the fees order. We affirm. BACKGROUND A. Section 425.16 authorizes dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim arising from an act in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech, unless the plaintiff demonstrates they are likely to prevail. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

1 We will refer to members of the Wong family by their first names for clarity. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

B. Albert filed a special motion to strike Justin’s complaint under section 425.16. The trial court granted the motion in part, striking three causes of action—for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment— that are based on Albert’s allegedly false accusations of elder abuse. The trial court explained that these causes of action all arise out of protected activity (reports to law enforcement and filing for a restraining order), and that Justin failed to show he was likely to prevail on the merits. The trial court denied Albert’s special motion to strike with respect to Justin’s other causes of action—for intentional interference with prospective economic relations, quantum meruit, and false impersonation. These causes of action do not arise from protected activity but rather from Albert’s alleged interference with Justin’s entitlement to his mother’s life insurance and retirement fund proceeds, as well as disputes between the two regarding mortgage and medical expenses. C. Albert moved for an award of attorney fees and costs. Albert’s counsel filed a declaration in which he stated his hourly fee was $350 and that he spent a total of 14.5 hours on the motion to strike, for a lodestar of $5,075. The 14.5 hours counsel spent on the motion to strike included four hours devoted to legal research; four and one-half hours preparing the motion; one hour reviewing the opposition; one and one-half hours preparing a reply; and one and one-half hours attending the hearing and discussing the motion with opposing counsel, plus two hours of travel time. Because Justin prevailed in part on the motion to strike, Albert’s counsel initially sought to recover only half of the total lodestar ($2,537.50).