Rowan v. Kirkpatrick CA1/3

Filed 9/13/21 Rowan v. Kirkpatrick CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

REBECCA MARISE ROWAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KYLIE JEAN KIRKPATRICK, A161436 Defendant and Appellant. (Napa County Super Ct. No. 20CV000084)

The trial court awarded plaintiff Rebecca Marise Rowan $23,162.50 in attorney fees as the prevailing party in a civil harassment action (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (s)).1 Kylie Jean Kirkpatrick appeals in propria persona. She contends the court abused its discretion by awarding “excessive” attorney fees. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND In early 2020, Rowan filed a request for civil harassment restraining order against Kirkpatrick. Rowan alleged Kirkpatrick posted threatening and defamatory comments about her on social media and engaged in other

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

threatening behavior. Kirkpatrick, acting in propria persona, filed a request for a restraining order against Rowan. Rowan filed a response. The court consolidated the restraining order requests. Kirkpatrick refused to stipulate to a commissioner hearing the matters and the parties agreed to continue the hearing to February 24, 2020. Kirkpatrick, however, failed to appear on that date. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in her absence and granted Rowan’s request for a restraining order (§ 527.6). It dismissed Kirkpatrick’s restraining order request without prejudice due to her failure to appear. Two days after the hearing, Kirkpatrick filed a “Supplemental Evidentiary Submission” supporting her restraining order request. Rowan moved to strike the submission. Later, at Rowan’s request, the court declared Kirkpatrick a vexatious litigant (§ 391).2 Two months later, Kirkpatrick filed ex parte applications seeking reconsideration of the restraining order and the vexatious litigant finding. The court denied the applications. In June 2020, Rowan moved for approximately $70,000 in statutory attorney fees. As relevant here, Rowan argued her attorneys spent more than 100 hours “successfully defending [Rowan] against Kirkpatrick’s retaliatory request for a restraining order” and successfully seeking a restraining order and vexatious litigant finding against Kirkpatrick. Rowan claimed “Kirkpatrick’s frivolous submissions and delay tactics” increased her attorney fees. Kirkpatrick did not oppose the motion. At an unreported hearing, the court ordered Rowan to provide a detailed breakdown of the fees incurred and permitted Kirkpatrick to file a response.