Peak Health Center v. Dorfman
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:19-cv-04145
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In Peak Health Center v. Dorfman, Judge Demarchi granted in part and denied in part Dorfman’s fee motion, awarding $61,699.50.
Peak Health Center was ordered to pay Brandon Dorfman $61,699.50 in attorneys’ fees.
What happened
Peak Health Center sued Brandon Dorfman over statements in a news article about Peak Health’s claim that it developed a cannabidiol-producing hops plant. The court later dismissed all of Peak Health’s claims and granted Dorfman’s motion to strike under California’s anti-lawsuit statute.
Dorfman requested $65,934 for work on his motions and his fee request. Peak Health argued that Dorfman had not fully prevailed and that his anti-lawsuit motion had not affected the result. The court rejected those arguments, but reduced some requested amounts because one paralegal’s hourly rate was too high and some billed time was not justified or was duplicative.
Judge Demarchi granted in part and denied in part Dorfman’s motion and ordered Peak Health to pay him $61,699.50 in attorneys’ fees.
The detailed version
- Peak Health Center v. Dorfman · No. 5:19-cv-04145
- Virginia Demarchi
- June 16, 2020
Background
Peak Health Center sued Brandon Dorfman over seven statements he made or published in a news article concerning Peak Health’s claim to have developed a strain of hops as a source of cannabidiol rather than hemp or cannabis. Peak Health’s amended complaint asserted claims for trade libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, along with claims that it later omitted.
The court previously dismissed Peak Health’s claims for failure to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement for allegations of fraud or falsity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). It also ruled that three of the seven statements were protected by the First Amendment. After Peak Health filed another amended complaint, the court granted Dorfman’s motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute and dismissed all three remaining claims without allowing another amendment. The opinion states that the claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Fee request and parties’ arguments
Dorfman sought $65,934 for work related to his motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, his second anti-SLAPP motion, and the motion for attorneys’ fees. Peak Health argued that Dorfman was not a prevailing party because four of the seven statements were not constitutionally protected. It also argued that the anti-SLAPP motion had no practical effect because the claims were dismissed through the motion to dismiss.
The court rejected both arguments. It held that Dorfman prevailed because all three causes of action were dismissed. It also held that the motion to dismiss and the anti-SLAPP motion were nearly identical and sufficiently connected, so the anti-SLAPP statute allowed recovery for the related work.
Lodestar calculation
The court calculated the fee award using the lodestar method, which multiplies reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. It found Matthew Cate’s rates of $475 per hour for 2019 and $540 per hour for 2020, and Robert Gutierrez’s rate of $725 per hour, reasonable. It reduced Ryan Relyea’s requested paralegal rate from $280 to $200 per hour.
The court deducted 5.3 hours from Gutierrez’s billed time because some work concerned earlier motions, some was performed after a brief had already been filed, and some duplicated Cate’s review. It found the remaining hours for the motion work reasonable, as well as the hours spent preparing the fee motion.
The resulting lodestar was $61,699.50. The court did not award the full $65,934 requested.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted in part and denied in part Dorfman’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The court ordered Peak Health Center to pay Dorfman $61,699.50 in attorneys’ fees incurred.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.