Capital Wholesale v. Buehring CA3

Filed 6/21/23 Capital Wholesale v. Buehring CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

CAPITAL WHOLESALE LLC, C095879

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34202100298533CUDFGDS) v.

AARON BUEHRING,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Capital Wholesale LLC sued Aaron Buehring for libel, defamation per se, and false light based on allegations that he posted negative reviews of Capital Wholesale online. Buehring responded with a successful anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 Capital Wholesale appeals from a subsequent judgment awarding $23,728 for attorneys’ fees and costs to Buehring.

1 The anti-SLAPP statute “provides for early dismissal of certain actions known as ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation.’ ” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 85.)

1

Capital Wholesale argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to completely analyze the reasonableness of these fees. We disagree and affirm the attorneys’ fee award. While we reject Buehring’s request that we sanction Capital Wholesale for filing a frivolous appeal, he is nonetheless entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees for this successful appeal. I. BACKGROUND Buehring filed a motion seeking recovery of $37,400 in attorneys’ fees and $228 in costs as the prevailing party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c). In support of his motion, Buehring submitted a declaration from one of his attorneys. In part, the declaration set forth the hours expended by two attorneys, as well as their billable rates. The requested $228 in costs was undisputed. As to the attorneys’ fees, the trial court found the declaration did “not suffice to establish the reasonableness of the 81.6 hours of attorney time for the anti-SLAPP motion. Indeed, the Court is familiar with anti-SLAPP motions, and Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was not complex.” The court further explained, “[t]he issues were straightforward and no hearing was required.” The court found counsel’s hourly rates were reasonable, but found Buehring was only entitled to an award for a total 50 hours of attorney time. After multiplying the number of hours it determined were reasonable for each attorney by each attorney’s hourly rate, the trial court awarded Buehring $23,500 in attorneys’ fees. The court entered judgment accordingly, and Capital Wholesale filed a timely appeal from this judgment. II. DISCUSSION A. The Trial Court’s Fee Award The prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion “shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) This appeal challenges only the trial court’s determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees. “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the