Spielbauer Law Office v. Midland Funding CA1/2

Filed 3/23/23 Spielbauer Law Office v. Midland Funding CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

SPIELBAUER LAW OFFICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A165817 v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC et al., (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 18CV339157) Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Spielbauer Law Office (Spielbauer) appeals an order granting attorney fees in the amount of $49,896 to the defendants who prevailed in bringing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint Spielbauer brought against them. All Spielbauer’s arguments relate solely to the amount of fees awarded. We reject its contentions and affirm the attorney fee award. DISCUSSION Spielbauer brought suit against respondents Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management (collectively, Midland) asserting claims based on Midland’s alleged interference with the attorney-client relationship between Spielbauer and a client it represented in debt collection litigation Midland brought against the client. The trial court granted Midland’s anti- SLAPP motion, and Midland then brought a motion requesting $53,346 in

1

legal fees from Spielbauer. Apart from a contention the attorney fee motion was premature (an issue not raised here), Spielbauer opposed the motion solely on the ground that the number of hours claimed was excessive in various ways. The trial court reduced the fee request by $3,450 for unnecessary inefficiency in one respect, found the fees were otherwise reasonable and awarded Midland $49,896. This timely appeal followed. Spielbauer’s opening brief is somewhat rambling and disjointed. Nevertheless, we understand Spielbauer to raise three issues: First, Spielbauer contends the trial court erred in excluding the declaration of its expert, Kevin Sullivan, opining on the excessiveness of the fees Midland claimed (in terms of the time spent on various tasks). It is unnecessary to consider whether the trial court erred in this regard, because we agree with Midland that any error was harmless. As a technical matter, the court sustained an objection to the Sullivan declaration in its entirety. But the trial court expressly said at the hearing that even if it considered the Sullivan declaration, the court would not “give it a lot of weight.” And the court explained why: “I didn’t find that he adequately expressed his experience in anti-SLAPP motions or in assessing attorneys fees. And certainly his objections were not to hourly rate but to the number of hours spent and I don’t know that he has the ability to look at this case and figure out how many hours were properly spent. He didn’t say he was that familiar with the case.” (Italics added.) The court indicated that it possessed independent familiarity with anti-SLAPP motions, having handled “lots” of them and having “seen attorneys fees requests of hundred[s] of thousands of dollars on SLAPP motions,” including one that was presently before it in another case. The court said it considered the amount of Midland’s fee request as “kind of in the middling range in terms of fee