Kaur v. Pabla CA5

Filed 12/15/23 Kaur v. Pabla 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JASWINDER KAUR et al., F085505 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 20CV-03476) v.

GURJIT PABLA et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. HBG Law and Harry B. Gill for Plaintiffs and Appellants Jaswinder Kaur and Parkash Pabla. Law Office of Sandra Kuhn McCormack and Sandra Kuhn McCormack for Defendant and Respondent ECP, LP.

-ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

This appeal follows the dismissal of a cross-complaint and the award of attorney’s fees. Appellants Jaswinder Kaur and Parkash Pabla, who were the successful parties, now challenge the amount of fees awarded by the trial court. We affirm the court’s award of attorney’s fees. BACKGROUND A cross-complaint was filed on March 15, 2022, by respondent ECP, LP (ECP), alleging Kaur and Pabla committed a slander on title, and intentionally interfered with business relationships. The cross-complaint was filed in an action brought by Kaur and Pabla against ECP to set aside a trustee’s sale of property allegedly based on the use of a forged promissory note and deed of trust, which included a lis pendens. ECP was the purchaser of the subject property at the trustee’s sale. On April 8, 2022, Kaur and Pabla filed a notice of their special motion to strike the cross-complaint (anti-SLAPP), without leave to amend, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 On May 20, 2022, the trial court granted Kaur and Pabla’s motion to strike and dismissed the cross-complaint. Thereafter, on July 19, 2022, Kaur and Pabla filed a motion to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing parties on the special motion to strike. The motion was supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, a declaration from Harry B. Gill, Kaur and Pabla’s attorney, and a “[c]ompendium of [e]xhibits.” The exhibits included a copy of the cross-complaint and Gill’s “Curriculum Vitae.” In his declaration, Gill noted his hourly rate for the representation he provided in this case was $650. Gill then detailed over nine pages how he spent his time researching and preparing