Huard v. Eldridge CA2/6

Filed 5/19/21 Huard v. Eldridge CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ANDREW LOGAN HUARD, 2d Civ. No. B301903 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2016- Petitioner and Appellant, 00479595-CU-HR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

ALAN RICHARD ELDRIDGE,

Defendant and Respondent.

Andrew Logan Huard challenges the amount of attorney fees awarded to Alan Richard Eldridge for successfully defending Huard’s petition for a civil harassment restraining order. The petition was tried over two days. The trial court found that the $15,753 requested by Eldridge’s attorney was reasonable and “a fair reflection of the amount of time and effort put into defending [Eldridge] in this matter.” We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of issues related to the parties’ jointly owned investment property. The parties’ relationship

deteriorated over time, and in 2016 Huard obtained a two-year civil harassment restraining order against Eldridge. Huard, as the prevailing party, requested $22,543 in attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (s). Eldridge objected, and the court awarded $4,500 in fees. In 2017, Huard filed an unlimited civil action against Eldridge on various tort theories based on his prior allegations. It was set for trial in March 2019. In February 2019, Huard filed a new petition for a civil harassment restraining order to protect not only Huard but also his parents and sister. Huard alleged 17 different actions by Eldridge. Eldridge opposed the request, claiming his contacts with Huard served a legitimate purpose as they were related to the civil action. After hearing the trial testimony, the trial court noted that the current matter concerned events that occurred after the prior restraining order had lapsed and was “struck” when Huard “conceded that he had no evidence of certain acts having taken place after the lapse of the last restraining order.” The court determined Huard had failed to meet his burden and entered judgment for Eldridge. Eldridge requested $15,753 in attorney fees and costs. Huard opposed the request, arguing the fees should be reduced by 82 percent to $2,835.54 and that the rate per hour should be $250 instead of $300. In his reply, Eldridge noted that in the 2016 proceeding, Huard claimed that his attorneys were entitled to $650 and $400 per hour. The trial court granted Eldridge’s entire fee request. It stated: “The Court reviewed the accounting provided by Ms. Phillips [Eldridge’s attorney] on behalf of the work done for her client. The Court heard the hearing. The Court heard all the