Skidmore v. The Regents of the University of California

Background

Allison Skidmore sued Gregory S Gilbert and other faculty members at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She alleged that faculty members imposed de facto discipline in response to an offensive Facebook post. Her complaint asserted two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, along with a California false-light invasion-of-privacy claim.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed the § 1983 claims on qualified-immunity grounds and struck the false-light claim under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. An anti-SLAPP motion is a procedure for challenging claims based on protected speech or petitioning activity. Defendants then moved for mandatory attorneys’ fees and costs under that statute.

Defendants sought fees for work on two consolidated motions addressing dismissal and the anti-SLAPP motion, defending eight depositions, opposing Skidmore’s motion for leave to amend, and litigating the fee motion. After supplementation, defendants sought $149,996.58 in fees and costs. Skidmore argued that only 89.7 of the 367.8 billed hours were recoverable and objected to specific time entries.

Fee analysis

The court used the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying reasonably expended hours by a reasonable hourly rate. It found the requested hourly rates reasonable for the Northern District of California. It reduced some requested hours for work on the two dispositive motions because the work was excessive, duplicative, or could have been delegated. It also applied a further 30% reduction to certain attorneys’ hours for work uniquely directed at the federal claims rather than the anti-SLAPP motion.

The court concluded that fees for defending the eight depositions were recoverable because the depositions were related to the anti-SLAPP motion. It reduced some deposition-related hours, particularly the preparation time billed by Joanne Buser, but awarded fees for the adjusted work.

The court denied fees for opposing Skidmore’s motion for leave to amend. That opposition relied on a lack of good cause and diligence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and did not involve overlapping legal issues or theories with the anti-SLAPP motion. The court found that the work was not “inextricably intertwined” with the anti-SLAPP motion.

The court awarded fees for litigating the attorneys’ fee motion itself, while reducing some requested hours. It declined to apply a multiplier and granted defendants’ request for $5,507.58 in costs, including court filing, process-server, reporter, and transcript fees.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs was GRANTED IN PART. The court awarded defendants $76,957.50 in attorneys’ fees and $5,507.58 in costs. It DENIED defendants’ request for fees incurred opposing Skidmore’s motion for leave to amend.