Ding v. Boone
Filed 4/18/06 Ding v. Boone CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
XIAOHONG DING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID ALAN BOONE et al., Defendants and Respondents. | H028218 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV010514) |
Statement of the Case
Plaintiff and appellant Xiaohong Ding filed an amended complaint against defendants and respondents David Alan Boone and two attorneys, James K. Roberts and Kirk W. Elliot, who had represented Boone, Ding's ex-husband, in their dissolution action and a related criminal proceeding that Ding initiated. The complaint asserted causes of action for domestic violence, conversion, malicious prosecution, defamation, and punitive damages. Defendants moved to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute.[1] They also sought attorney's fees incurred in making the motion. After a hearing, the court partially granted the motions and struck the causes of action for malicious prosecution and defamation.[2] Thereafter, the court granted the requests for fees as follows: $8,680.00 to Boone for the services of Roberts; $1,046.08 to Elliot for the services of Roberts[3]; and $4,510.00 to Roberts and Elliot for the services of Lance Burrow. The court awarded no fees to defendant Roberts for the work he did in his own defense.
Ding appeals from the order granting attorney fees. She claims the court abused its discretion in awarding fees.
We affirm the order granting fees.
Background
In support of his motion for fees, Boone submitted the declaration of Roberts, who set forth his qualifications, his billing practices, his hourly rate ($285.00), and his computation of the time and fees incurred in preparing Boone's motion to strike/demurrer. In particular, Roberts stated that he spent 33.7 hours on the motion, from which he deducted 10 percent that he attributed to work on the demurrer. He submitted documentation showing the dates of service, time spent, and work performed. Roberts asserted that there were advanced costs of $36.30, and he estimated future fees related to the motion at $3,420.00. In a supplemental declaration, Roberts stated that he spent an additional three and a quarter hours reviewing and preparing a response to Ding's ex parte application to the court to rescind the underlying order striking certain causes of action. In all, the total figure for Roberts' services to Boone amounted to $13,026.65.
In their motion, Roberts and Elliot sought fees incurred for the services of Roberts and those of Burrow. In support of the motion, they submitted a declaration from Roberts, who stated that he spent 20.25 hours on their motion, from which he deducted 10 percent attributable to the demurrer. He provided documentation showing dates of service, time spent, and work performed. Roberts stated that there were also advanced costs of $36.30. The total figure for Roberts's services to Roberts and Elliot amounted to $5230.43.
Roberts and Elliot also submitted the declaration of Lance Burrow, who explained his qualifications, billing practices, hourly rate ($250.00), and his computation of time and fees incurred in preparing for the motion to strike. Burrow stated that he spent a total of 43.1 hour preparing for the motion and provided documentation concerning the dates of service, types of service, and the amount of time spent. In a supplemental declaration, Burrow stated he spent an additional two hours responding to Ding's ex parte application. The total figure for Burrow's services to Roberts and Elliot amounted to $11,275.00.
In awarding fees, the court reduced Boone's request for $13,026.65 for Roberts's services by one-third to $8,680.00. The court reduced Roberts and Elliot's request for $11,275.00 for Burrow's services by 60 percent to $4,510.00. The court reduced their request for $5,230.43 for Roberts's services by 80 percent to $1,046.08.[4]
Applicable Principles
A defendant who is partially successful in moving to strike under section 425.16 is entitled â€