Jones v. Reekes CA5

Filed 1/9/23 Jones v. Reekes CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RICHARD JONES et al., F082866 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. BCV-20-102526) v.

CONNIE REEKES, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. David R. Lampe, Judge. Parker Mills, David B. Parker, Steven S. Wang, Justin D. Denlinger, and Bradley W. Jacks for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Ganong Law and Philip W. Ganong for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellants Richard Jones, Preferred Towing Service, LLC, and Fast Response Security, Inc. challenge the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs following dismissal of their case filed against respondent Connie Reekes. For the reasons set forth

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and De Santos, J.

below, we affirm the attorney fees award but reverse and remand for the trial court to reduce the costs awarded. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The attorney fees and costs award appealed in this matter follow from a litigation between the parties over certain Facebook posts respondent made about appellants that was dismissed following an anti-SLAPP motion brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 In a separate appeal, this court affirmed the dismissal of those claims under the anti-SLAPP statute. Additional background on the underlying case can be found in our nonpublished opinion (Jones v. Reekes (Feb. 28, 2022, F082499)), which we incorporate by reference herein.2 Following dismissal, respondent sought attorney fees and costs pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statue. Respondent’s initial motion sought $16,900 in attorney fees and $414.86 in costs and was supported by declarations and billing records from the case. Respondent identified a reasonable rate of $300 per hour for attorney work and $50 per hour for secretarial work. The supporting bills included 54.15 hours of attorney time and 5.6 hours of secretarial time. In counsel’s declaration, explanations were provided for why some work that would normally be done by a secretary had to be done by counsel due to emergency circumstances. The costs consisted of $250 for expert consultation fees, $35.04 for filing fees, $90 for transcript fees, $39.32 for copier charges, and $0.50 for postage. In reply, the attorney fees request was increased to $19,900 to include work done on the fee motion itself, which accounted for a request of 10 additional hours for the reply brief and argument. In addition to this, respondent requested the court apply a