Gregory v. Harris

Background

The case arose from disputes concerning the estate of Susan Sabado, Jeanne Gregory’s mother. Sabado and her husband created the Antonio and Susana Sabado Family Trust. John C. Glaser served as trustee until his death in 2016, after which Prime Fiduciary Services was appointed trustee.

Attorney James Efting represented Prime Fiduciary Services. In 2017, he filed a petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court seeking instructions about distributing remaining trust funds and correcting an alleged unequal distribution to Gregory. The Superior Court granted that petition.

Gregory later filed this federal action against seven defendants, including Jackson & Efting, Efting’s law firm. The complaint did not identify separate claims for relief against Efting or the firm. Gregory alleged that Prime Fiduciary Services was improperly appointed successor trustee and that Efting acted unlawfully by filing the state-court petition and disregarding trust language that, according to Gregory, made her the sole trustee.

Jackson & Efting filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Anti-SLAPP laws provide a procedure for challenging claims arising from protected speech or petitioning activity. Gregory did not oppose that motion within the applicable deadline and later voluntarily dismissed Jackson & Efting and five other defendants. Jackson & Efting then sought attorney fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c), arguing that it qualified as a prevailing party.

Anti-SLAPP Motion

The court first considered whether Jackson & Efting would have prevailed on its motion to strike if Gregory had not voluntarily dismissed the firm. The court concluded that it would have.

First, the court found that Gregory’s allegations concerned protected petitioning activity. The allegations were limited to Efting’s filing of the petition and other statements made while advocating for the trustee in state court. The court stated that communicative acts performed by attorneys while representing clients in judicial proceedings are protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Second, the court found that Gregory had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on any claim against Jackson & Efting. Although the court liberally construed Gregory’s filings because she was representing herself, it could identify no actionable claim against Efting or the firm. The court also found that Gregory had identified no actionable conduct and had not rebutted the firm’s showing that Efting’s representation of the trustee was protected by the litigation privilege, which can shield qualifying statements and conduct connected with judicial proceedings from tort liability.

Attorney Fees

The court explained that a defendant who brings a successful anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to attorney fees and costs, and that the award is mandatory. Jackson & Efting requested $17,505 for work directly related to the anti-SLAPP motion and the fee motion.

The requested rates were $450 per hour for Alex Graft and $225 per hour for Ronald Oakes-Cunningham. The court found those rates reasonable. It also found reasonable the 46 total hours claimed: 31.8 hours by Graft and 14.2 hours by Oakes-Cunningham. Using the reasonable rates and hours, the court calculated a lodestar—the number of reasonable hours multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—of $17,505.

Gregory’s Late Objections

Months after briefing on the fee motion had ended, Gregory sought permission to file objections. She said she had not understood the financial significance of the motion when she responded in 2021 and could not afford the requested award.

The court denied the request for leave to file belated objections. It found that Gregory had not explained why she did not understand the potential financial impact earlier, identified no good cause for the delay, and had not raised the new arguments in her timely response. The court also stated that it could not reduce the mandatory fee award to account for Gregory’s ability to pay; it could only determine whether the claimed fees were reasonable.

Disposition

The court granted Jackson & Efting’s motion for attorney fees in the amount of $17,505.00 and denied Gregory’s motion for leave to file late objections.