Run The World Inc. v. Jiang

Background

Run The World Inc. (RTW) and Xiaoyin Qu, the former counterclaim defendants, jointly filed special motions to strike Xuan Jiang’s abuse-of-process counterclaim under California’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation law, commonly called the anti-SLAPP statute. The court later terminated those motions as no longer necessary after Jiang filed an amended counterclaim, while allowing RTW and Qu to renew them if appropriate.

Jiang’s first amended counterclaim continued to assert the challenged claims. She later stipulated to file a second amended counterclaim that abandoned the abuse-of-process claim and related allegations. The stipulation stated that the amendment was intended to make the issues raised by the anti-SLAPP motions no longer relevant. RTW and Qu reserved their right to seek attorney fees and costs for their anti-SLAPP work.

Entitlement to Fees

Jiang argued that RTW and Qu were not prevailing parties because the court never granted their anti-SLAPP motions. The court rejected that argument. It explained that a defendant may qualify as the prevailing party when the opposing party abandons the challenged claim before the court rules on the motion, particularly when the defendant achieved the motion’s objective.

The court found that the anti-SLAPP motions and the prospect of renewing them caused Jiang to abandon the abuse-of-process counterclaim. It therefore concluded that RTW and Qu obtained meaningful results and were prevailing parties for purposes of California’s fee-shifting provision.

The court also rejected Jiang’s argument that the motions would have failed. It stated that RTW’s filing of the underlying lawsuit was conduct protected by California’s litigation privilege and that the abuse-of-process claim, as alleged, could not rest solely on that filing. The court did not ultimately decide the anti-SLAPP motions themselves because Jiang abandoned the challenged claim.

Other Objections

Jiang argued that the fee motions should be denied because RTW and Qu had not met and conferred before filing earlier fee motions. The court declined to deny the current motions on that basis, noting that the parties had met and conferred before filing the motions at issue and that the relevant local rules and professional-conduct guidelines did not impose the asserted requirement for the earlier anti-SLAPP motions.

Jiang also sought an unspecified reduction based on cooperation between RTW’s and Qu’s lawyers and argued that fees incurred by Conrad Metlitzky Kane LLP should not be recovered because of a potential ethical conflict. The court rejected both arguments. It had not determined that the firm had an ethical conflict, and it concluded that cooperation between counsel did not by itself make the fee requests unrecoverable or duplicative.

Amount of the Awards

The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. It found that the submitted records generally identified work connected to the anti-SLAPP motions or related fee motions. It rejected Jiang’s claim that RTW and Qu improperly included time spent on unrelated motions to dismiss.

The court excluded one 0.5-hour entry by Mark Conrad concerning a motion to dismiss. It otherwise approved the requested hourly rates, finding them consistent with relevant market rates or otherwise supported by counsel’s declarations. Jiang offered no countervailing evidence showing that the rates were excessive.

Disposition

The court granted RTW and Qu’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees. It awarded RTW and Qu jointly $26,094.50 for anti-SLAPP-related work by Conrad Metlitzky Kane LLP, RTW $23,045.00 for anti-SLAPP-related work by Dotson Law Group, and Qu $28,204.25 for anti-SLAPP-related work by Lewis & Llewellyn LLP. The total awarded was $77,343.75.