Garrick v. Garrick

Background

Owen Garrick brought a civil-rights case against the County of Alameda, Alameda County Emergency Medical Services, the Alameda County Public Health Department, and Jocelyn Freeman Garrick in her official capacity, together called the County Defendants. The court previously granted in part and denied in part the County Defendants’ first motion to dismiss and anti-SLAPP motion to strike, and allowed Garrick to amend his complaint. The court later granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims in the Second Amended Complaint and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. It denied the County Defendants’ second anti-SLAPP motion without prejudice.

The County Defendants then moved for attorney’s fees and costs under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. They requested $34,033.12, including fees for preparing both anti-SLAPP motions, motions to dismiss, and the fee motion, as well as costs. Garrick opposed the request and asked the court to exercise its discretion to deny the fees.

Court’s analysis

Under California law, a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion generally may recover attorney’s fees and costs. The court used the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate.

The court found the County Defendants’ billing rates reasonable. The rates were $295 per hour for the most senior partner, $260 and later $280 per hour for an associate who became senior counsel, and $130 per hour for a paralegal. The court noted that these rates were below ranges previously found reasonable in the Northern District of California.

The court found the documentation of the hours insufficient. The County Defendants claimed 119.5 hours, but their supporting declaration grouped the work into broad periods and included work on motions to dismiss, reviewing complaints, meeting with Garrick’s former counsel, the second anti-SLAPP motion, and the fee motion. The court explained that work on federal claims was not compensable under its earlier order and that only work sufficiently connected to the anti-SLAPP motion could be included. The County Defendants submitted no time sheets or billing records and did not explain how the other work was connected to the compensable anti-SLAPP work.

The court also noted that although it had granted the anti-SLAPP motion concerning Garrick’s allegations against Jocelyn Freeman Garrick, the case included claims against Officers Karl Doe and John Doe that were challenged through a motion to dismiss rather than an anti-SLAPP motion. The County Defendants did not show how the work concerning those claims was intertwined with the anti-SLAPP motion.

The court found the $32.12 filing fee reasonable and appropriate. It did not award the broader fee request because the record did not allow it to separate compensable from noncompensable time with precision.

Disposition

The court denied the County Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice. It directed them to file a supplemental brief revising the request within 21 days. Garrick could respond within 14 days after the supplemental brief was filed. The court stated that it would then consider the matter without a hearing unless it ordered otherwise.