Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00940/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00940-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TARLA MAKAEFF, et al., on Behalf

of Herself and All Others Similarly

Situated,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 10cv0940 GPC (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER

DEFENDANT TARLA

MAKAEFF’S REQUEST FOR

FEES AND COSTS

[Dkt. No. 331.]

 vs.

TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, (aka

Trump Entrepreneur Initiative) a New

York Limited Liability Company,

DONALD J. TRUMP, and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC,

 Counterclaimant,

 vs.

TARLA MAKAEFF, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive, 

 Counter Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Tarla Makaeff’s (“Makaeff”)

Bill of Fees and Costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16,

commonly known asCalifornia’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

(“anti-SLAPP”) statute. (Dkt. No. 331.) Defendant/Counterclaimant Trump

- 1 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

University, LLC (“Trump University”) has opposed. (Dkt. No. 335.) Pursuant to this

Court’s order, the Parties also submitted supplemental briefing. (Dkt. Nos. 358, 364,

367.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND

DENIES IN PART Makaeff’s request for fees and costs. The Court AWARDS

Makaeff fees in the amount of $790,083.40, and costs in the amount of $8,695.81.

BACKGROUND

Beginning in August 2008, Makaeff attended Trump University’s real estate

programs. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 10.) On April 30, 2010, Makaeff brought a class action

lawsuit against Trump University accusing it of, among other things, deceptive

business practices. (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 26, 2010, Trump University filed a

defamation counterclaim against Makaeff. (Dkt. No. 4.) 

On June 30, 2010, Makaeff filed a special motion to strike Trump University’s

defamation counterclaim under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of

Civil Procedure § 425.16. (Dkt. No. 14.)

On August 23, 2010, Judge Irma E. Gonzalez denied Makaeff’s anti-SLAPP

motion. (Dkt. No. 24.) Makaeff’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied

on September 20, 2010. (Dkt. No. 40.) 

On January 3, 2011, Makaeff appealed the denial of her anti-SLAPP motion to

the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. No. 43), which reversed and remanded on April 17, 2013.

1

Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254, 271 (9th Cir. 2013). In addition, the

Ninth Circuit granted Makaeff’s unopposed request that the issue of appellate

attorney’s fees be transferred to the district court. (Dkt. No. 284.) On June 16, 2014,

this Court granted Makaeff’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike Trump University’s

defamation counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 328.)

On July 3, 2014, pursuant to this Court’s direction, Makaeff filed a Bill of Fees

and Costs to substantiate the amount of reasonable attorney’sfees and costs associated

1

In the interim, the case was transferred to the undersigned judge. (Dkt. No.

190.) 

- 2 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with bringing the anti-SLAPP motion, related appeal, and supplemental briefing. (Id.

at 18-19; Dkt. No. 331.)2 Trump University filed an opposition on July 18, 2014. (Dkt.

No. 335.) On July 22, 2014, Makaeff filed a “Notice of Deficiency and Intended NonResponse Absent Court Request.” (Dkt. No. 336.)

On November 18, 2014, this Court ordered Makaeff to submit “additional

briefing detailing the amount of time each attorney spent on each task” and further

“substantiating the costs requested.” (Dkt. No. 358.) Makaeff filed her supplemental

briefing on December 15, 2014, and Trump University filed its supplemental

opposition on December 23, 2014.

3

(Dkt. Nos. 364, 367.) On January 7, 2015,

Makaeff filed an ex parte application for leave to file a limited response.4(Dkt. No.

368.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, “a prevailing defendant on a special

motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.”

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1) (emphasis added); see also Ketchum v. Moses, 17

P.3d 735, 741 (Cal. 2001) (“[A]ny SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion

to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney fees.”). 

To determine a reasonable attorney’s fee award for an anti-SLAPP motion, the

California Supreme Court has found that “the lodestar adjustment approach should be

applied.” Ketchum, 17 P.3d at 744. For the lodestar approach, the Court begins by

“multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable

hourly rate.” McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433(1983)).

2Page number citations such as this one are to the page numbers reflected on the

Court’s CM/ECF system and not to page numbers assigned by the parties.

3On December 16, 2014, the Court granted Makaeff’s motion to quash Trump

University’s subpoenas of Plaintiffs’ counsels’ time records, and denied Trump

University’s motion to compel the production of documents. (Dkt. No. 366.)

4The Court GRANTS Makaeff’s unopposed ex parte application.

- 3 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

An award offees and costs in an anti-SLAPP case must be reasonable, and courts

have broad discretion in determining what is reasonable. See Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v.

Wornick, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1220,1222 (S.D. Cal. 2002). 

DISCUSSION

In the instant case, Makaeff requests an award of attorney’s fees in the amount

of $1,333,004.25, based on 2,226.35 hours incurred in the process of strategizing,

researching and briefing the anti-SLAPP motion, subsequent successful appeal and

opposing Trump University’s petition for rehearing en banc, discovery, supplemental

briefing, and the fee brief. (Dkt. No. 331 at 16, 18; Dkt. No. 331 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 58;

Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 55; Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 2; Dkt. No.

364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 2.) Additionally, Makaeff requests costs in the amount of

$9,209.27. (Dkt. No. 331 at 18; Dkt. No. 331 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 59; Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck

Decl.) ¶ 57; Dkt. No. 364 at 19 n.11; Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 2, 31 n.1;

Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 33.) Trump University counters that the Court

should deny Makaeff’s fee request entirely, or substantially reduce the fees to no more

than $147,675.00, and deny all costs. (Dkt. No. 335 at 27; Dkt. No. 367 at 27.) 

I. Evidentiary Objections and Motions to Strike

As a preliminary matter, the Court considers Trump University’s evidentiary

objections and motions to strike. Trump University objects to the majority of the two

supplemental declarations of Makaeff’s counsel, Rachel L. Jensen and Amber L. Eck,

on the ground that they contain inadmissible hearsay. (Dkt. Nos. 367-3, 367-4.)

Specifically, Trump University contends that the portions of the two supplemental

declarations regarding the time spent by other attorneys and paralegals – who did not

submit their own declarations – are inadmissible hearsay because the two declarants

do not purport to have personally observed the amount of time spent by these other

individuals.

Trump Universityrelies on the NinthCircuit’s recent decision in Muniz v. United

Parcel Serv., Inc., 738 F.3d 214, 222-23 (9th Cir. 2013), which held that an attorney’s

- 4 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

declaration regarding his paralegal’s hours was inadmissible hearsay. In Muniz, the

declaring attorney averred that he watched the paralegal reconstruct her hours and the

spreadsheet he attached to his declaration showed her hours. Id. The Ninth Circuit

held that the attorney’s declaration stating the number of hours worked by the paralegal

was inadmissible hearsay because it merely repeated the paralegal’s out of court

statements concerning the hours she had worked. Id. at 223. Therefore, the Ninth

Circuit vacated in part and remanded to the district court “to determine, in the first

instance, whether any hearsay exception applies to [the attorney’s] declaration

regarding fees for paralegal work in this case.” Id. at 227. 

Trump University argues that here, similar to Muniz, the two supplemental

declarations regarding the time spent and tasks performed by other individuals are

inadmissible hearsay because they are “undoubtedly based on out of court statements

or [the declarant’s] own opinion” and are not based on “personal knowledge or

observation.” (Dkt. No. 367-3 at 3; Dkt. No. 367-4 at 3.) See also Knickerbocker v.

Corinthian Colls., No. 12-cv-1142-JLR, 2014 WL 3927227, at *3 n.2 (W.D. Wash.

Aug. 12, 2014) (attorney’s declaration of another attorney’s hours worked was

inadmissible hearsay based on Muniz); Kranson v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 11-cv5826-YGR, 2013 WL 6503308, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013) (attorney’s declaration

of paralegal’s hours worked was inadmissible hearsay based on Muniz).

Makaeff counters that Muniz is distinguishable because the initial and

supplemental declarations of Makaeff’s counsel, Ms. Jensen and Ms. Eck, regarding

other individuals are based on their personal knowledge working on the matters,

overseeing the work of others, and their personal review of their respective law firms’

business records. (Dkt. No. 368-1 at 5-6.) See Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp.

3d 1270, 1275 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“[P]ersonal knowledge can come from the review

of the contents of business records and an affiant may testify to acts that she did not

personally observe but which have been described in business records.” (citing Aniel

v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, No. 12-cv-4201-SBA, 2012 WL 5373388, *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

- 5 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30, 2012))). Both Ms. Jensen and Ms. Eck declare that they personally reviewed their

firm’s time and expense records maintained in the ordinary course of business. (Dkt.

No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶¶ 43, 54-55, 61; Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 53; Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 4). 

The Court agrees with Makaeff that the portions of the two supplemental

declarations regarding the time spent by other attorneys and paralegals are not

inadmissible hearsay because they are based on Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s personal

knowledge, including their overseeing of the work of others and their personal review

of business records. See Banga, 29 F. Supp. 3d at 1275 n.2; see also Fed. R. Evid.

803(6) (outlining business records exception to hearsay rule).

Trump University also argues that the supplemental declarations disregard the

best evidence rule by describing the contents of writings (i.e., time and expense

records) not submitted into evidence. (Dkt. No. 367-3 at 3; Dkt. No. 367-4 at 3) See

Fed. R. Evid. 1002. However, under California law, “an award of attorney fees may

be based on counsel’s declarations, without production of detailed time records.”

Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 196, 205 (Ct. App. 2009). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Trump University’s evidentiary objections to

and motion to strike portions of the supplemental declarations of Ms. Jensen and Ms.

Eck on the grounds of hearsay and best evidence, as well as lack of foundation, lack

of personal knowledge, and improper opinion.

5

 

II. Reasonable Attorney’s Fees

To determine a reasonable attorney’s fee award under the lodestar approach, the

Court first considers whether Makaeff’s counsel’s hourly rates and number of hours

5 Trump University also filed evidentiary objections to the original Declarations

of Rachel L. Jensen, Amber L. Eck, Carol A. Sobel, Eric Alan Issacson, and Karl Olson

in support of Makaeff’s Bill of Fees and Costs. (Dkt. Nos. 335-2, 335-3, 335-4, 335-5

and 335-6.) Makaeff argues that the objections are “not well-taken.” (Dkt. No. 336 at

n.1.) The Court notes the objections. To the extent that the evidence is proper under

the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court considered the evidence. To the extent the

evidence is not proper, the Court did not consider it. 

- 6 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

expended are both reasonable. The Court then considers Makaeff’s request for an

upward multiplier.

A. Reasonable Hourly Rates

To determine the reasonable hourly rate, the Court looks to the “rate prevailing

in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill,

experience, and reputation.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, the relevant

community is the Southern District of California because it is “the forum in which the

district court sits.” Id. The burden is on the party requesting attorney’s feesto produce

“satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested

rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers

of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.” Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815

F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11

(1984). Evidence that the Court should consider includes “[a]ffidavits of the

[movant’s] attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community,

and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the

[movant’s] attorney.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d

403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, Makaeff’s counsel seek attorney hourly rates ranging from $250 to $440

for associates, and $600 to $825 for partners. (Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 58; Dkt.

No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 55.) Makaeff’s counsel argues that its rates are reasonable

because the two lawfirms have extensive class action experience, and their hourly rates

are comparable to those that have been previously approved by this Court and in this

District in class action settlements. (Dkt. No. 331 at 14-15; Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen

Decl., Ex. 4-7); Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl., Ex. 3-4.) Makaeff’s counsel also points to

the National Law Journal’s annual large law firm rate survey, which does not list any

San Diego law firms for 2013, and lists only one San Diego law firm, Luce Forward

Hamilton & Scripps LLC (“Luce Forward”), for 2007, who at that time charged

- 7 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

associate rates of $220 to $450 per hour, and partner rates of $325 to $725 per hour.

(Dkt. No. 331 at 14; Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl., Ex. 3) at 120.) Makaeff’s counsel

contendsits rates are within thisrange, given that the survey rates are from seven years

ago. (Dkt. No. 331 at 14.) Further, Makaeff’s counsel argues that even if their rates

are above average for the Southern District, it is justified by their credentials, track

record and the contingent nature of the litigation. (Id. at 14-15.) 

Trump University argues that Makaeff’s counsel’s rates are unreasonable and

should be reduced to a blended rate of $300 per hour. (Dkt. No. 335 at 18-21.) Trump

University points to Makaeff’s own submission of a “Real Rate Report Snapshot,”

which lists for 2012: (1) San Diego average hourly rates of $278.30 for associates, and

$443.69 for partners; (2) law firms of 101-250 attorneys average hourly rates of

$277.81 for associates, and $422.35 for partners; (3) San Diego partner average hourly

rates of $483.88 for fewer than 21 years experience; (4) San Diego associate average

hourly rates of $318.52 for three to fewer than seven years experience; and (5) San

Diego litigation average hourly rates of $197.88 for associates, and $279.03 for

partners. (Dkt. No. 331-4 (Olson Decl., Ex. A) at 27, 29, 33, 37, 62.) Trump

University also notes that Makaeff’s own expert declares that her counsel’s rates

“appear to be higher than the average billing rates in San Diego.” (Id. ¶ 14.) In

addition, Trump University argues that Makaeff’s counsel’s rates should be reduced

because her counsel admits that they had no experience with anti-SLAPP motions, and

because they were improperly staffed with too many partners working on a simple

motion. (Dkt. No. 335 at 19.) Trump University further relies on other cases in this

District awarding attorney’s fees for anti-SLAPP motions which used lower hourly

rates. (Id. at 19-20.) See, e.g., Ravet v. Stern, No. 07-cv-31-JLS (CAB), 2010 WL

3076290, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010) (finding $350 hourly rate reasonable for antiSLAPP motion based on attorney declarations, “the complex and lengthy nature of this

case, and the Court’s familiarity of the rates charged in the San Diego community”).

- 8 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court determines that Makaeff has produced satisfactory evidence that the

hourly rates for its associates and partners are reasonable. The hourly rates are

consistent with Luce Forward’s 2007 rates in the National Law Journal survey, with

those previously approved by this Court and in this District in class action settlements,

and with this Court’s familiarity of the rates charged in the San Diego community.

Trump University’s reliance on the average rates in the Real Rate Report Snapshot

survey and other anti-SLAPP motion cases are misplaced given the complex and

lengthy nature of the anti-SLAPP motion in the instant case. Makaeff has also

provided the declaration of an attorney with extensive experience with anti-SLAPP

motions who opines that “the experience, credentials, and effectiveness of Makaeff’s

counsel in this case justify above-average billing rates.” (Dkt. No. 331-4 (Olson Decl.)

¶ 14.) As such, the Court finds that the associate and partner rates charged by Makaeff

are reasonable.

However, the Court determines that Makaeff has failed to produce satisfactory

evidence to support itsrequested ratesfor staff attorneys and paralegals. Makaeffseeks

hourly rates of $350 for “staff attorneys” and ranging from$250 to $295 for paralegals.

(Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 58; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 2.)6 Makaeff

has not provided sufficient evidence of the prevailing market rates for staff attorneys

and paralegals in this District. The only supporting evidence the Court located in the

Makaeff’sfilingsregarding prevailing ratesin this District wasthat in prior class action

settlements(which used the common fund approach rather than the lodestar approach),

Makaeff’s counsel submitted hourly rates of $380 for a “project attorney” and $280 for

a “paralegal / law clerk” in one action, and $175 for a paralegal in two other actions.

(Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl. Ex. 7) at 211 ¶ 54; Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl. Ex. 3-4)

at 46 ¶ 3, 60 ¶ 6.) There is also some evidence regarding national rates for staff

attorneys and paralegals, but it is Makaeff’s burden to show prevailing rates in this

6The Court notes that Ms. Eck’s initial declaration omitted the $125 in paralegal

fees. (Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck. Decl.) ¶ 55.)

- 9 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

District. (Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl. Ex. 2) at 98, 100; Dkt. No. 331-4 (Olson Decl.

Ex. A) at 22.) 

In addition, Makaeff has not provided any evidence as to the background and

experience of the staff attorneys or paralegals, which might allow the Court to conduct

an independent review to determine the prevailing rate. For example, in Brighton

Collectibles,Inc. v. Coldwater Creek Inc., No. 06-cv-1848-H (POR), 2009WL160235,

at * 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2009), the court concluded that $90 to $210 per hour was

reasonable for paralegal work. However, $90 to $210 per hour is a wide range

depending on the education, skill and experience of the particular paralegal. Here,

Makaeff offers no information or documentation justifying the rates for the staff

attorneys and paralegals, such as a curriculum vitae, resume, or description of the

individual’s educational background orlitigation experience. For instance, for the staff

attorneys, there is no indication whether they are admitted to practice law in California,

and if so when. In the absence of any evidence as to the background and experience

of the staff attorneys and paralegals, the Court is unable to determine the prevailing

rate. 

Therefore, because Makaeff has failed to carry her burden to demonstrate that

the staff attorney and paralegal hourly rates are reasonable, the Court DENIES

Makaeff’s request for staff attorney and paralegal fees. See Zest IP Holdings, LLC v.

Implant Direct Mfg., LLC, No. 10-cv-541-GPC (WVG), 2014WL 6851612, at *6 (S.D.

Cal. Dec. 3, 2014) (denying paralegal fees because insufficient facts were presented as

to the paralegal hourly rate); Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. RK Texas Leather Mfg., No.

10-cv-419-GPC (WVG), 2014 WL 5438532, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014) (same);

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Ortiz, No. 12-cv-05766-LHK, 2014 WL 1266267, at *3-4

(N.D. Cal. Mar.24, 2014) (denying attorney’s fees, including for “research attorney,”

because plaintiff failed to provide evidence of prevailing market rates or attorneys’

experience). 

- 10 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In sum, the Court concludes that Makaeff has shown that the hourly rates for

associates and partners are reasonable, but has not shown that the staff attorney and

paralegal hourly rates are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES the staff

attorney total fees of $121,047.50 and the paralegal total fees of $90,542.50. (Dkt. No.

331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 58; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 2.)

B. Reasonable Hours Expended

The party seeking fees bearsthe “burden of establishing entitlement to an award

and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” ComputerXpress,

Inc. v. Jackson, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625, 649 (Ct. App. 2001) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). Although “it is not necessary to provide detailed billing

timesheets to support an award of attorney fees under the lodestar method,”

Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc., 168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 40, 53 (Ct. App. 2014), the

“evidence should allow the court to consider whether the case was overstaffed, how

much time the attorneys spent on particular claims and whether the hours were

reasonably expended.” Christian Research Inst. v. Alnor, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 866, 870

(Ct. App. 2008). To that end the Court may require a prevailing party to produce

recordssufficient to provide “a proper basis for determining how much time was spent

on particular claims.” ComputerXpress, Inc., 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 649 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court should exclude hours “‘that are

excessive,redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” McCown, 565 F.3d at 1102 (quoting

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434). 

The Court previously determined that the declarations submitted by Makaeff

failed to provide enough information to ascertain if the hours expended on this case

were reasonable because Makaeff’s attorneys provided only a summary chart showing

the total amount of hours each individual spent on the anti-SLAPP litigation, and

provided no showing of the specific tasks and the time spent on each task. (Dkt. No

331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 58; Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck. Decl.). ¶ 55; Dkt. No. 358.) As such,

- 11 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Court ordered Makaeff to submit “additional briefing detailing the amount of time

each attorney spent on each task.” (Dkt. No. 358 at 6.)

In response, Makaeff has provided supplemental declarationsfor Ms. Jensen and

Ms. Eck which divide the hours spent on the anti-SLAPP litigation into twenty-five

procedural categories (e.g., initial anti-SLAPP motion before the district court, district

court reply brief, etc.). (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.); Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck

Supp. Decl.).) Trump University argues that these supplemental declarations still fail

to provide sufficient information, and that the hours sought by Makaeff are

unreasonable, and should be denied or substantially reduced, for three main reasons:

(1) “lumped” descriptions of tasks; (2) duplicative hours; and (3) improper staffing.

(Dkt. No. 367.) The Court considers each of Makaeff’s twenty-five procedural

categories, and Trump University’s arguments, to determine whether the expended

hours are reasonable.

1. Initial Anti-SLAPP Motion Before the District Court

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

initial anti-SLAPP motion by the various attorneys:7

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Rachel Jensen RGRD8 Partner $660 39.75 $26,235.00

Paula Roach RGRD Associate $360 43.75 $15,750.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 30.50 $21,045.00

Helen Zeldes ZHE Partner $600 2.50 $1,500.00

Aaron Olsen ZHE Associate $410 9.25 $5,550.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 4.)

7Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 84.25 staff attorney hours and 21.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 5.) 

8

“RGRD” refers to Ms. Jensen’s firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

“ZHE” refers to Ms. Eck’s firm, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP.

- 12 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen “spent several hours on the

phone with other practitioners and my co-counsel to formulate our strategy,” “met with

ourteam,” and “reviewed the research memoranda, read key cases, . . . made substantial

revisions to the motion, including drafting, and then . . . reviewed and revised the

supporting draft declarations.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 5;see also Dkt.

No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 15.) Ms. Roach “provid[ed] a first draft of the opening

motion and the declarations.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 5; see also Dkt.

No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 15.) Ms. Eck’s “firm’s” tasks involved “reviewing Trump

University’s counterclaim; conducting extensive legal research; conversations and

emails with defense counsel . . . requesting (unsuccessfully) that Trump University

provide copies ofthe lettersit contended were defamatory; conducting factual research

and having numerous conversations with Tarla Makaeff regarding ascertaining the

allegedly defamatory documents; and assisting Tarla Makaeff in preparing a detailed

declaration.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 4; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck

Decl.) ¶¶ 18-22.) 

Trump University argues that these hours should be reduced because the

descriptions lump together the time spent on multiple tasks, preventing the Court from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 11.) For example, there

is no break down of how many hours Ms. Roach spent on providing a first draft of the

motion versus the declarations. (Id.) Trump University also argues that the time is

duplicative, with three partners, two associates, and one staff attorney working on the

motion. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that Makaeff’s lumping together of

time, rather than breaking down time by tasks, makes it difficult to assess whether the

time spent on each discrete task was reasonable. Overall, the time spent on the initial

anti-SLAPP motion seems high. The lumping together of tasks makes it hard to

evaluate whether all of the time spent was necessary. For example, it is impossible to

- 13 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determine how much time was spent on legal research, and as a result whether such

amount of time was reasonable.

Makaeff’s lumping together of multiple tasks is similar to “block billing.” See

Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (“‘Block billing’

is ‘the time-keeping method by which each lawyer and legal assistant enters the total

daily time spent working on a case, rather than itemizing the time expended on specific

tasks.’” (citation omitted)). Although “block billing” is “not objectionable per se,” its

use may obscure “the nature of some of the work claimed.” Christian Research Inst.,

81 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 873-74. As such, courts have discretion to reduce blocked billed

hours because it “makes it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on

particular activities.” Welch, 480 F.3d at 948 (citing Role Models Am., Inc. v.

Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (reducing requested hours because

counsel’s practice of block billing “lump[ed] together multiple tasks, making it

impossible to evaluate their reasonableness”)); see also Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v.

Monroy, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26, 55 (Ct. App. 2013) (“Trial courts retain discretion to

penalize block billing when the practice preventsthemfromdiscerning which tasks are

compensable and which are not.”). When presented with block billing in a fee request,

“the trial court should exercise its discretion in assigning a reasonable percentage to the

entries or simply cast them aside.” Bell v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d

263, 275 (Ct. App. 2000). However, an across-the-board reduction on hours should not

be applied to all requested hours and should instead be specific to counsel’s block

billed hours, and the district court should “‘explain how or why . . . the reduction . . .

fairly balance[s]’ those hours that were actually billed in block format.” Welch, 480

F.3d at 948 (citation omitted).

TheCourt determinesthat a 20 percent reduction is warranted for the hours spent

on the initial anti-SLAPP motion because the lumping together of tasks makes it

difficult to evaluate whether a reasonable amount of time was expended. In Welch, the

Ninth Circuit approved of a 20 percent fee reduction for block billing because a

- 14 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California State Bar Committee report concluded that block billing “may increase time

by 10% to 30%” and 20 percent was in the “middle range.” Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

Similarly here, the Court finds a 20 percent reduction warranted.9

The Court also excludes Ms. Zeldes’s and Mr. Olsen’s time because there is no

clear indication what tasks they performed.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $19,656.00 in fees for the initial antiSLAPP motion. 

2. District Court Reply Brief

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

district court reply brief by the various attorneys:10

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 6.00 $3,960.00

Paula Roach RGRD Associate $360 20.75 $7,470.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 27.00 $18,630.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 5.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen “reviewed and edited

Makaeff’s supplemental declaration drafted by co-counsel.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen

Supp. Decl.) ¶ 6; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 17.) Ms. Roach “drafted the

9The Court notes that Makaeff has offered to provide additional information to

the Court, including the underlying time entries and records. (Dkt. No, 364 at 9 n.5;

Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl. ¶ 35.)

However, the Court has already generously provided Makaeff two opportunities to

offersufficient evidence. Moreover, the burden of culling sufficient information from

contemporaneous records properly rests with the fee applicant, not the Court. See In

re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig., 438 F. Supp. 1303, 1327 (C.D. Cal. 1977)

(“The burden is clearly on counsel to file adequately-documented applicationsfor fees

and those who fail to meet that burden do so at their own risk.”). As such, the Court

will not entertain Makaeff’s offer to provide additional information. 

10Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 43.25 staff attorney hours and 16.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 6.) 

- 15 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reply brief.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 6;see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen

Decl.) ¶ 17.) Ms. Eck’s tasks involved “reviewing Trump University’s Opposition to

our Anti-SLAPP motion; conducting extensive legal research regarding the issues

involved; numerous conversations with Makaeff regarding relevant facts; review of

documents relating to the Bank of America letter and Better Business Bureau (‘BBB’)

letter that Trump University produced for the first time, attached to their opposition;

and assisting Makaeff in preparing a detailed supplemental declaration.” (Dkt. No.

364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 5; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶¶ 23-24.) 

Trump University argues that these hours should be reduced because Ms. Eck

has provided a lumped description of her numerous tasks, making it difficult to

determine whether the hours spent were reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 12.) In addition,

Trump University argues that there appears to be duplication of efforts because two

partners worked on Makaeff’s declaration, and Ms. Eck spent time “conducting

extensive legal research” at the same time that a staff attorney was conducting legal

research. (Id.)

TheCourt agrees with Trump University that Ms. Eck’s hours should be reduced

due to the lumping together of tasks, which makesit difficult for the Court to determine

if the hours spent are reasonable. As such, for the reasons discussed above, the Court

applies a 20 percent reduction to Ms. Eck’s hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

However, the Court does not reduce Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Roach’s hours.

Accordingly, the CourtEXCLUDES$3,726.00 in feesfor the district court reply

brief.

3. Opposition to Motion to Strike

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

opposition to Trump University’s motion to strike by the various attorneys:11

11Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 4.25 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 7.) 

- 16 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 1.50 $990.00

Paula Roach RGRD Associate $360 2.75 $990.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 9.75 $6,727.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 6.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen states that her “firm took

the lead in researching and drafting the opposition brief.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen

Supp. Decl.) ¶ 7; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 18.) Ms. Eck states that “we

were required to research, prepare, and file an Opposition to the motion to strike.”

(Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 6; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 25.) 

Trump University argues that these hours should be reduced because the

descriptions lump together the time spent on multiple tasks, preventing the Court from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 12.) Trump University

also argues that the time spent by two firms researching and drafting is duplicative.

(Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that the hours should be reduced due

to lumping together of tasks, which makes it difficult for the Court to determine if the

hours spent are reasonable. For example, Ms.Jensen states that her counsel at her firm

“took the lead,” and yet Ms. Eck’s firm spent over twice as much time on the

opposition. Moreover, Ms. Eck vaguely describes tasks that “we” performed, even

though she is the only individual from her firm who expended hours. As such, the

Court applies a 20 percent reduction to the hours expended on the opposition to the

motion to strike. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

In addition, the Court excludes Ms. Roach’s hours because there is no clear

indication what tasks she preformed. 

- 17 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $2,533.50 in fees for the opposition to the

motion to strike.

4. District Court Hearing and Preparation

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

district court hearing regarding the anti-SLAPP motion by the various attorneys:

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 1.25 $825.00

Paula Roach RGRD Associate $360 1.00 $360.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 23.5 $16,215.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 7.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen’s “firm assisted co-counsel

with preparation for the hearing and reviewed Trump’s sur-reply.” (Dkt. No. 364-1

(Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 8; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 19.) Ms. Eck, who

“personally argued” the anti-SLAPP motion, “spent a substantial amount of time

preparing for the hearing, which included: additional research regarding the issues

involved; additional review and analysis of all cases cited in our briefs and Trump

University’s briefs; and further conversations with Makaeff.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck

Supp. Decl.) ¶ 7; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 26.) Additional attorneys from

both firms attended the hearing, but Makaeff is not seeking reimbursement for their

time. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 7.)

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced because the lumping

together of tasks makes it impossible to assess the reasonableness of hours, and there

appears to be duplication of efforts, with two attorneys preparing a third attorney for

the hearing. (Dkt. No. 367 at 12-13.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that the hours should be reduced due

to lumping together of tasks, which makes it difficult for the Court to determine if the

- 18 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hours spent are reasonable. For example, Ms. Eck’s declaration lumps together the

time for additional research, review of cases, conversations with Makaeff, and the

actual argument. As such, the Court applies a 20 percent reduction to the hours

expended on the district court hearing and preparation. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

In addition, the Court excludes Ms. Roach’s hours because there is no clear

indication what tasks she preformed. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $3,768.00 in fees for the district court

hearing and preparation. 

5. Motion for Reconsideration

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

motion for reconsideration by the various attorneys:12

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 1.50 $1,237.50

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 9.50 $6,270.00

Paula Roach RGRD Associate $360 4.50 $1,620.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 66.00 $45,540.00

Helen Zeldes ZHE Partner $600 5.00 $3,000.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 8.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr. Isaacson, Ms. Jensen, and Ms.

Roach all helped revise the motion. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 9; see also

Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 20.) Ms. Eck “spent a considerable amount of time

researching for the motion for reconsideration, including: reviewing treatises on

defamation and Anti-SLAPP motions; reading a large number of cases; and speaking

with numerousfirst amendment andAnti-SLAPP experts, professors, and consultants.”

12Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 22.00 staff attorney hours and 17.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 9.) 

- 19 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 8; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶¶ 27-28.)

In addition, “[w]e then spent additional time preparing” the motion. (Dkt. No. 364-2

(Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 8.)

Trump University argues that these hours should be reduced because the

descriptionslump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventstheCourt from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 13.) Trump University

also argues that the hours are duplicative, because it took four partners, an associate,

and a staff attorney to prepare a simple, and ultimately unsuccessful, motion for

reconsideration. (Id.) 

The Court excludes Ms. Zeldes’s time because there is no indication what tasks

she performed. In addition, the Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping

together of tasks makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the hours are

reasonable. As such, the Court applies a 20 percent reduction to the other hours

expended on the motion for reconsideration. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $13,933.50 in fees for the motion for

reconsideration. 

6. Motion for Reconsideration Reply Brief

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

motion for reconsideration reply brief by the various attorneys:13

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 3.00 $1,980.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 27.50 $18,975.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 9.)

13Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 24.00 staff attorney hours and 16.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 10.) 

- 20 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen declares that “[w]e . . .

reviewed and revised the reply brief drafted by co-counsel.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen

Supp. Decl.) ¶ 10; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 21.) Ms. Eck declares that

“[p]reparation of the Reply in support of our Motion for Reconsideration involved:

reviewing and analyzing Defendant’s motion for reconsideration . . . , including all

cases cited therein; additional legalresearch; additional consultation with Anti-SLAPP

experts; and preparation of the Reply.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 9.)

Trump University argues the hours should be reduced because the descriptions

lump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining

if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 14.) Trump University also argues

that Ms. Jensen’s declaration vaguely states that “we” reviewed and revised the reply

brief, which evidences duplicative efforts. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the hours are reasonable. As such,

the Court applies a 20 percent reduction to the hours expended on the motion for

reconsideration reply brief. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $4,191.00 in fees for the motion for

reconsideration reply brief. 

7. Appeal Opening Brief

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

appeal opening brief by the various attorneys:14

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 221.75 $182,943.75

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 10.00 $6,600.00

14Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 77.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 11.) 

- 21 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Amanda Frame RGRD Associate $440 45.50 $20,020.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 12.50 $8,625.00

Helen Zeldes ZHE Partner $600 0.50 $300.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 11; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 10.)

Ms.Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’ssupplemental declarations, as well as Mr. Isaacson’s

declaration, provide the following additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr.

Isaacson “took the lead on researching and briefing the appeal,” while Ms. Jensen

“reviewed and revised the brief and request for judicial notice.” (Dkt. No. 364-1

(Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 11; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 22.) Mr. Isaacson

declares that he read a variety of legal research, consulted with outside attorneys, and

briefed the appeal. (Dkt. No. 331-3 (Isaacson Decl.) ¶¶ 14-15, 19, 22.) Ms. Eck

declares that: “I and my firm assisted in research, preparation, and revision of the

appellate brief, and in compiling Trump University and Donald Trump articles, letters,

emails, advertisements, website snapshots, and other such documents for use on

appeal.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 10; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.)

¶¶ 35-36.) 

Trump University argues that these hours should be reduced forseveral reasons.

(Dkt. No. 367 at 14.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) Second, Trump University argues that there is

duplication, with Ms. Jensen and Ms. Eck reviewing the work of Mr. Isaacson. (Id.)

Third, Trump University argues that there was improper staffing, with Ms. Eck, a

partner, working on relatively simple tasks. (Id.) Finally, Trump University argues

that Mr. Isaacson spent excessive time on the opening brief, because it was unnecessary

for him to consult with outside attorneys and read books on Trump University and

Donald Trump. (Dkt. No. 367-2 at 79.)

The Court excludes Ms. Frame’s and Ms. Zeldes’s time because there is no

indication what tasks they performed. The Court also excludes Ms. Eck’s time because

- 22 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

her tasks were either duplicative of other attorneys, or improper tasks for a high billing

partner. For Mr. Isaacson and Ms. Jensen, the Court agrees with Trump University that

the lumping together of tasks makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the

hours are reasonable, and as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See

Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $66,853.75 in feesfor the appeal opening

brief. 

8. Opposition to Motion to Stay

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

opposition to Trump University’s motion to stay the action pending appeal by the

various attorneys:15

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 4.75 $3,918.75

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 9.00 $5,940.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 27.50 $18,975.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 13.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions ofthe tasks performed. Ms. Eck spoke with Trump University’s

counsel regarding withdrawing the motion, and then “research[ed] and draft[ed] [the]

opposition.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 12; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck

Decl.) ¶¶ 32-34.) Ms. Jensen and Mr. Isaacson “reviewed and edited the opposition

brief prepared by co-counsel.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 12; see also

Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 23.)

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced because the

descriptionslump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court from

15Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 13.75 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 12.) 

- 23 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 15.) Trump University

also argues that the time is duplicative, with two partnersreviewing the work of a third

partner. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that some of the hours are duplicative,

and it was unnecessary for the opposition drafted by one partner to be reviewed by two

other partners. As such, the Court excludes Ms. Jensen’s hours. For Ms. Eck and Mr.

Isaacson, the Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the hours are reasonable, and

therefore applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $10,518.75 in fees for the opposition to

the motion to stay.

9. Ninth Circuit Settlement Conference

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

Ninth Circuit Settlement Conference by the various attorneys:

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 4.50 $3,712.50

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 1.25 $825.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 2.75 $1,897.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 14.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr. Isaacson and Ms. Jensen prepared

for and participated in the telephonic settlement conference. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen

Supp. Decl.) ¶ 13.) Ms. Eck attended the conference, and “had conversations with

Makaeff both before and after the” conference, “in order to prepare a settlement offer

and to relay the results.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 14; see also Dkt. No.

331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 31.) Ms. Eck notes that she did not charge two of the hours she

- 24 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

spent preparing for and attending the conference. (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.)

¶ 14.)

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced because the

descriptionslump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventstheCourt from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 15.) Trump University

also argues that the time is duplicative, with three partners participating in the

telephonic conference. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that it was excessive to have three

partners participating in the settlement conference, and therefore excludesMs.Jensen’s

hours. The Court also agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the hours are reasonable, and as

such, applies a 20 percent reduction to the other hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $1,947.00 in fees for the Ninth Circuit

Settlement Conference.

10. Work with Amicus on Appeal

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent soliciting

public support and coordinating amici and amicus briefs by the various attorneys:

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 12.75 $10,518.75

Kevin Green RGRD Partner $720 7.75 $5,580.00

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 3.50 $2,310.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 6.00 $4,140.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 16.)

Ms.Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations, as well as Mr. Isaacson’s

declaration, provide the following additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr.

Isaacson, Mr. Green, and Ms. Jensen “consulted with lawyers for the American Civil

Liberties Union (‘ACLU’) and Consumer Attorneys of California concerning issues

- 25 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relevant to the opening appeal brief and reply appeal brief, as well as providing

feedback on amicus briefs they submitted to the Ninth Circuit and keeping amici

informed of developments.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 14; see also Dkt.

No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 25; Dkt. No. 331-3 (Isaacson Decl.) ¶¶ 16-18.) Ms. Eck

spoke with attorneys for the Consumer Attorneys of California and the BBB regarding

submitting amicus briefs, reviewed amicus briefs filed by the ACLU and Consumer

Attorneys of California, and communicated with amici and Makaeff regarding the

briefs. (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 15-16; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck

Decl.) ¶¶ 37-38.) 

Trump University argues that the hours should be denied entirely as unnecessary,

duplicative, and excessive. (Dkt. No. 367 at 16.) Trump University questions why it

took four partners to consult with amici. (Id.) Further, the descriptions lump together

time spent on multiple tasks, which prevents the Court from determining if the hours

spent are reasonable. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that much of the time appears

duplicative, which is exacerbated by the failure to differentiate how much time was

spent on different tasks by different attorneys. For example, it is unclear whether all

four partners consulted with the Consumer Attorneys of California. Therefore, the

Court excludes the hours of Mr. Green and Ms. Jensen as duplicative. The Court also

agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks makes it difficult for

the Court to evaluate whether the hours of Mr. Isaacson and Ms. Eck are reasonable,

and as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $10,821.75 in fees for working with

amicus on appeal.

///

///

///

///

- 26 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. Request for Judicial Notice Reply Brief

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

request for judicial notice reply brief by the various attorneys:16

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 26.50 $21,862.50

Thomas Merrick RGRD Partner $685 0.75 $513.75

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 0.25 $165.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 15.)

Ms. Jensen’s supplemental declaration provides the following additional

descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr. Isaacson “took the lead on researching and

drafting the request for judicial notice reply brief.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp.

Decl.) ¶ 15; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 26.) Mr. Merrick and Ms.Jensen

reviewed the brief. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 15.)

Trump University arguesthat these hours should be reduced for several reasons.

(Dkt. No. 367 at 16.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) Second, Trump University argues that there was

improper staffing, with an $825 per hour partner researching and drafting a simple

request for judicial notice reply brief. (Id.) Third, Trump University argues that the

time is duplicative in having two partners review the work of a third partner. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that Mr. Merrick’s and Ms. Jensen’s

time appears duplicative, and therefore excludestheirtime. The Court also agrees with

Trump University that Mr. Isaacson’s hours seem excessive and improperly staffed for

a request for judicial notice reply brief. As such, the Court reduces Mr. Isaacson’s time

by 50 percent, which would make his hourly rate more in line with that of an associate.

16Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 8.00 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 15.) 

- 27 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $11,610.00 in fees related to the request

for judicial notice reply brief.

12. Appeal Reply Brief

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

appeal reply brief by the various attorneys:17

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 88.00 $72,600.00

Thomas Merrick RGRD Partner $685 2.50 $1,712.00

Amanda Frame RGRD Associate $440 14.50 $6,380.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 3.25 $2,242.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 16; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 17.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr. Isaacson “took the lead in

researching and preparing the reply brief, with research assistance from Ms. Frame.” 

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 16; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.)

¶ 27.) Mr. Merrick “also assisted with reviewing and revising the brief.” (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 16.) Ms. Eck’s time reflects reviewing and revising both

the appeal reply brief and the supplemental request for judicial notice. (Dkt. No. 364-2

(Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 17; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 39.) 

Trump University argues that these hoursshould be reduced for several reasons.

(Dkt. No. 367 at 16-17.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) Second, Trump University argues that there was

improperstaffing, with a $685 per hour partner reviewing the work of an $825 per hour

partner. (Id. at 17.) Third, Trump University argues that the time is duplicative

17Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 33.00 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 16.) 

- 28 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

because two partners reviewed the work of a third partner, and because Ms. Frame and

Mr. Isaacson both conducted research. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that Mr. Merrick’s and Ms. Eck’s

hours, reviewing and revising Mr. Isaacson’s work, reflect improper staffing and

duplication of effort. As such, the Court excludes their hours. The Court also agrees

with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks makes it difficult for the

Court to evaluate whether the hours of Mr. Isaacson and Ms. Frame are reasonable, and

therefore, applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $19,751.00 in fees related to the appeal

reply brief.

13. Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

supplemental request for judicial notice by the various attorneys:18

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 13.50 $11,137.50

Thomas Merrick RGRD Partner $685 0.75 $513.75

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 17.)

Ms. Jensen’s supplemental declaration provides the following additional

descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr. Isaacson “researched and prepared Makaeff’s

supplemental request for judicial notice and reply.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp.

Decl.) ¶ 17; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 28.) There is no mention of Mr.

Merrick’s tasks.

Trump University argues that these hours should be reduced for several reasons.

(Dkt. No. 367 at 17.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

18Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 7.25 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 17.) 

- 29 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) Second, Trump University argues that there was

improper staffing, with an $825 per hour partner researching and drafting a

supplemental request for judicial notice. (Id.) Third, Trump University argues that

there is no explanation for why Mr. Merrick needed to spend any time on the

supplemental request. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that Mr. Merrick’s time should be

excluded because there is no indication what tasks he performed. The Court also

agrees withTrumpUniversity that Mr. Isaacson’s hours seemexcessive and improperly

staffed for a supplemental request for judicial notice. As such, the Court reduces Mr.

Isaacson’stime by 50 percent, which would make his hourly rate more in line with that

of an associate.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $6,082.50 in fees related to the

supplemental request for judicial notice.

14. Ninth Circuit Appeal Strategy

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent by the

various attorneys on strategy for the Ninth Circuit appeal:

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 1.75 $1,443.75

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 0.25 $165.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 18.)

Ms. Jensen’s supplemental declaration provides the following additional

descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr. Isaacson and Ms. Jensen spent a total of two

hours “strategizing and thinking about our approach to the anti-SLAPP litigation that

does not easily fit into another category” such “as “exploring potential avenues to bring

to the Court’s attention misrepresentations made by Trump’s counsel.” (Id.)

Trump University argues that these two hoursshould be denied entirely because

the descriptions lump time together and the time is duplicative. (Dkt. No. 367 at 17.)

- 30 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TheCourt disagrees with Trump University, and determinesthat these two hours

were reasonably expended.

Accordingly, the Court does not exclude any fees for the Ninth Circuit Appeal

strategy.

15. Ninth Circuit Hearing

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

Ninth Circuit hearing by the various attorneys:19

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 69.50 $57,337.50

Thomas Merrick RGRD Partner $685 9.50 $6,507.50

Amanda Frame RGRD Associate $440 8.50 $3,740.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 1.00 $690.00

Jessica Labrencis ZHE Associate $250 1.00 $250.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 19; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 19.)

Ms.Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations, as well as Mr. Isaacson’s

declaration, provide the following additional descriptions of the tasks performed.

According to Ms. Jensen, Mr. Isaacson “spent a substantial amount of time over the

course of weeks prepar[ing] for the oral argument, including holding a mock argument

in which two attorneys from [her] firm participated.”20(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp.

Decl.) ¶ 19; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 29.) Mr. Isaacson declares that

he “devot[ed] many hours to” “preparing for oral argument” and “personally argued the

appeal.” (Dkt. No. 331-3 (Isaacson Decl.) ¶ 19.) Ms. Eck’s “firm spent a total of one

hour talking and e-mailing with Makaeff over the course of three separate days in

preparation for the hearing, and one hour assisting in preparation for the Ninth Circuit

19Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 3.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 19.) 

20Ms. Eck and Ms. Labrencis also participated in the mock argument, but have

not charged for this time. (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 19.) 

- 31 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hearing.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 18; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.)

¶ 35.) Makaeff only seeks to recoup Mr. Isaacson’s time and expenses for attending

the hearing itself, even though additional attorneys also attended the hearing. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 19; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 19; see also Dkt.

No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 30.) 

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced for several reasons.

(Dkt. No. 367 at 18.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) For example, there is no indication how much of Mr.

Isaacson’s time was spent on the actual argument, the mock argument, and other

preparation. (Id.) Second, Trump University argues that Mr. Isaacson’s time appears

excessive, and that it should not have taken him several weeks to prepare. (Id.) Third,

Trump University contends that a mock argument was unnecessary for an experienced

attorney like Mr. Isaacson, and that participation in the mock argument should not be

billed as it is educational.21(Id.; see also Dkt. No. 335 at 18.) Finally, Trump

University argues that Ms. Labrencis’s time is duplicative. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makes it difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the hours are reasonable. As such,

the Court applies a 20 percent reduction to the hours expended on the Ninth Circuit

hearing. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. The Court disagrees with Trump University that

a mock argument was unnecessary to prepare for the hearing.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $13,705.00 in fees related to the Ninth

Circuit hearing. 

16. Research Regarding Possible 28(j) Letter

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on

researching submitting a letter under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j):

21Makaeff counters that it is precisely because of Mr. Isaacson’s experience that

he knew that a mock argument is the best way to prepare for a Ninth Circuit oral

argument. (Dkt. No. 364 at 17.)

- 32 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 7.50 $6,187.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 20.)

Ms. Jensen’s supplemental declaration provides the following additional

descriptions of the tasks performed: “My firm considered submitting a Rule 28(j) letter

to the Ninth Circuit with supplemental authorities that had come to our attention. We

also considered sending a letter to the NinthCircuit correcting misrepresentations made

to the Court. However, we ultimately decided against submitting such a letter. . . . Mr.

Isaacson spent [time] reviewing the record and researching a possible Rule 28(j) letter

to submit to the Ninth Circuit.” (Id.) 

Trump University argues that these hours should be denied entirely because the

descriptionslump time together and the time appears excessive and unnecessary. (Dkt.

No. 367 at 18.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makesit difficult forthe Court to evaluate whether the hours are reasonable. The Court

also agreesthat these hours appear excessive and unnecessary. In addition, these hours

appear duplicative because the Ninth Circuit appealstrategy category already included

“exploring potential avenuesto bring to the Court’s attention misrepresentations made

by Trump’s counsel.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 18.) As such, the Court

excludes Mr. Isaacson’s hours.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $6,187.50 in fees related to the Ninth

Circuit hearing.

///

///

///

///

///

- 33 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 33 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17. Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

opposition to Trump University’s petition for rehearing en banc by the various

attorneys:22

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 183.75 $151,593.75

Kevin Green RGRD Partner $720 0.50 $360.00

Thomas Merrick RGRD Partner $685 9.25 $6,336.25

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 10.50 $6,930.00

Amanda Frame RGRD Associate $440 8.20 $3,608.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 13.00 $8,970.00

Helen Zeldes ZHE Partner $600 0.50 $300.00

Jessica Labrencis ZHE Associate $250 1.25 $312.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 20.)

Ms.Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations, as well as Mr. Isaacson’s

declaration, provide the following additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms.

Jensen declares that Mr. “Isaacson, with the assistance of Ms. Frame and [a staff

attorney], drafted an opposition that was reviewed and revised by additional attorneys

at my firm, including myself.” (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 21; see also Dkt.

No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 32.) Mr. Isaacson declares that: “[The fact that] separate

concurring opinions both urged en banc rehearing meant that I would have to devote

considerable time to review the law of federal courts and federal jurisdiction, and as

well asthe collateral-order doctrine – none of which had previously been at issue in the

litigation.” (Dkt. No. 331-3 (Isaacson Decl.) ¶ 21.) “Because the concurring opinions

and Trump University’s petition for en banc rehearing focused on questions of

22Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 84.55 staff attorney hours and 11.00 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 21.) 

- 34 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 34 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

constitutional law and federal jurisdiction that had never been at issue in the litigation,

I could not rely on my previous work in the case, but instead had to review and digest

a further vast body of law in order to effectively oppose en banc rehearing.” (Id.) Ms.

Eck “communicated with Makaeff on several occasions regarding the Appeal and the

en banc petition” and her “firm assisted in researching and preparing the opposition to

the en banc petition.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 20; see also Dkt. No. 331-2

(Eck Decl.) ¶ 41.) 

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced for several reasons. 

(Dkt. No. 367 at 18-19.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) Second, there appears to be duplication of efforts,

with several attorneys researching and drafting the opposition. (Id. at 19.) Third,

Trump University argues that there is no description of what was done by Mr. Green

and Mr. Merrick. (Id.) 

The Court excludes the time for Mr. Green, Mr. Merrick, Ms. Zeldes, and Ms.

Labrencis because there is no clear indication what tasks they performed. The Court

agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks makes it difficult for

the Court to evaluate whether the other hours are reasonable. As such, the Court

applies a 20 percent reduction to the hours expended by Mr. Isaacson, Ms. Jensen, Ms.

Frame, and Ms. Eck. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $41,529.10 in feesfor the opposition to the

petition for rehearing en banc.

18. Work with Amicus on En Banc Opposition

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent working

with amicus on the opposition to Trump University’s petition for rehearing en banc by

the various attorneys:

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

- 35 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 35 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 12.25 $10,106.25

Kevin Green RGRD Partner $720 2.25 $1,620.00

Thomas Merrick RGRD Partner $685 2.50 $1,712.50

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 3.25 $2,242.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 21.)

Ms.Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations, as well as Mr. Isaacson’s

declaration, provide the following additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms.

Jensen declares that: [m]y partners also met with lawyers from the ACLU and

Consumer Attorneys of California and with a number of anti-SLAPP practitioners

concerning strategy, soliciting public support, and considering the submission of

additional briefsin support of our opposition to the en banc petition.” (Dkt. No. 364-1

(Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 22; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 32.) Mr. Isaacson

declares that he “again consulted extensively with lawyers from the ACLU and the

ConsumerAttorneys ofCalifornia, and also with experienced practitionersspecializing

in Anti-SLAPP litigation,” and that “[o]nce again, the Consumer Attorneys of

California submitted an amicus curiae brief supporting Makaeff, thistime opposing the

petition for en banc rehearing.” (Dkt. No. 331-3 (Isaacson Decl.) ¶¶ 22-23.) Ms. Eck

“personally spoke with attorneys for the Consumer Attorneys and the BBB, and

participated in various communications with them” regarding submitting amicus curiae

briefs. (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 21.)

Trump University argues that these hours should be denied entirely for several

reasons. (Dkt. No. 267 at 19.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions

lump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining

if the hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) Second, there appears to be duplication of

efforts, with four partnerssoliciting support fromamici. (Id.) Third, Trump University

argues that there is improper staffing, with high billing partners doing the task of an

associate. (Id.) 

- 36 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 36 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court agrees with Trump University that much of the time appears

duplicative, which is exacerbated by the failure to differentiate how much time was

spent on different tasks by different attorneys. For example, it is unclear whether all

four partners consulted with the Consumer Attorneys of California. Therefore, the

Court excludesthe hours of Mr. Green and Mr. Merrick as duplicative. The Court also

agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks makes it difficult for

the Court to evaluate whether the hours of Mr. Isaacson and Ms. Eck are reasonable,

and as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $5,802.25 in feesfor working with amicus

on the en banc opposition.

19. Strategy Regarding the Remand and the Motion to Transfer

Fee Motion to District Court

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on

strategizing about the remand and researching the best vehicle for addressing attorney’s

fees by the various attorneys:23

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 18.30 $15,097.50

Kevin Green RGRD Partner $720 1.00 $720.00

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 2.75 $1,815.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 6.25 $4,312.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 22.)

Ms.Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’ssupplemental declarations, as well as Mr. Isaacson’s

declaration, provide the following additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Mr.

Isaacson “researched, drafted, and filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit to transfer

jurisdiction over the award of those fees to this Court.” (Dkt. No. 331-3 (Isaacson

23Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 30.80 staff attorney hours and 3.75 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 23.) 

- 37 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 37 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Decl.) ¶ 25; see also Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen

Decl.) ¶ 35.) Mr. Green reviewed the motion “after reading some relevant opinions.”

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 23.) Ms. Jensen “spoke to Mr. Isaacson and

reviewed the applicable rules and commented on the strategy and the draft as well.”

(Id.) Ms. Eck “researched the logistics for submitting a motion for fees and

transferring the issue of the fee motion to the District Court.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck

Supp. Decl.) ¶ 22.) 

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced for several reasons. 

(Dkt. No. 367 at 19-20.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

hours spent are reasonable. (Id. at 19.) Second, there appears to be duplication of

efforts. (Id. at 20.) For example, Ms. Eck was conducting research at the same time

as Mr. Isaacson and a staff attorney. (Id.) Third, Trump University argues that there

was improper staffing because the drafting by Mr. Isaacson could have been done by

a lower rate biller. (Id.)

The Court agreesthat the hours by the four partners appear duplicative. As such,

the Court excludes the hours of Mr. Green, Ms. Jensen, and Ms. Eck. The Court also

agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks makes it difficult for

the Court to evaluate whether the hours of Mr. Isaacson are reasonable, and as such,

applies a 20 percent reduction to his hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $9,867.00 in fees for the strategy regarding

remand and motion to transfer fee motion to district court.

20. Makaeff Deposition Preparation and Document Production

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent preparing

Makaeff for an additional deposition and further discovery by the various attorneys:24

24Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 27.25 staff attorney hours and 24.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 24.) 

- 38 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 38 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Jason Forge RGRD Partner $740 22.00 $16,280.00

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 43.50 $28,710.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 55.50 $38,295.00

Aaron Olsen ZHE Associate $410 0.25 $102.50

Jessica Labrencis ZHE Associate $250 2.25 $562.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 24; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 26.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen declares that she and Mr.

Forge performed the following tasks “in connection with the negotiation ofthe Makaeff

deposition terms and conditions, strategizing, traveling back and forth to Los Angeles,

preparing Ms. Makaeff for her deposition, reviewing her anti-SLAPP documents and

producing them to Trump’s counsel”:

My colleague Jason Forge and I had calls with Ms. Makaeff to discuss

sitting for deposition again, had calls with our co-counsel Ms. Eck about

the same, calls and emails with Trump’s counsel at first objecting to Ms.

Makaeff sitting for another deposition session, calling Judge Gallo’s

chambers, and then spending hours negotiating the terms and conditions

of the deposition. Thereafter, I spent time strategizing about the

deposition and helping Ms. Makaeff draft a supplemental declaration.

After we finished a draft, Mr. Forge reviewed the draft declaration and

provided comments. Then, my partner Jason Forge and I both spent

separate days traveling to Los Angeles and meeting with Ms. Makaeff to

prepare and defend her for the deposition. In the course of those

meetings, Ms. Makaeff provided documents that were relevant to the

SLAPP proceedings(which were previously stayed before the matter was

remanded to this Court). I spent a day reviewing all the potentially

responsive documents before theywere produced, and finalizedMakaeff’s

supplemental declaration.

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 24; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.)

¶ 37.) Ms. Eck declares that “the Court . . . permitted additional discovery on the issue

of actual malice” and “[w]e spent a substantial amount oftime conferring with Makaeff

and compiling, reviewing, and producing all potentially responsive documents,

including hundreds of pages of e-mails and other documents that she discovered upon

further review of her files.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 23; see also Dkt. No.

- 39 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 39 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 46.) In addition, “we spent numerous hours over the course of a

week to prepare Makaeff for her deposition.”25

(Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 25;

see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 45.) 

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced for several reasons. 

(Dkt. No. 367 at 20.) First, Trump University argues that the descriptions lump

together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court fromdetermining if the

hours spent are reasonable. (Id.) For example, there is no break down of how much

time was spent on negotiations, deposition preparation of Makaeff, travel time, etc.

(Id.) Second, there appears to be duplication of efforts. (Id.) Third, Trump University

argues that the hours were excessive because the deposition was limited to two hours

and the issue of “actual malice,” and Makaeff was familiar with the deposition process

having already sat for three depositions. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that much of the time appears

duplicative and excessive, which is exacerbated by the failure to differentiate how

much time was spent on different tasks by different attorneys. For example, it is

unclear why it was necessary for at least three attorneys, two of which had to travel to

Los Angeles, to prepare Makaeff for her two-hour deposition. Therefore, the Court

excludesthe time of Mr. Forge. The Court also excludesthe time of Mr. Olsen and Ms.

Labrencis because it is unclear what tasks they preformed. In addition, the Court

agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks makes it difficult for

the Court to evaluate whether the hours of Ms. Jensen and Ms. Eck are reasonable, and

as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, theCourt EXCLUDES $30,346.00 in feesfor Makaeff deposition

preparation and document production.

///

///

25Ms. Eck notes that she has not charged for her time in preparing for the

deposition of Makaeff’s former boyfriend, which was later taken off-calendar. (Dkt.

No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 26.) 

- 40 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 40 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21. Supplemental Brief Regarding Actual Malice

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on this

Court’s request for supplemental briefing on the issue of actual malice by the various

attorneys:26

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 4.00 $3,300.00

Jason Forge RGRD Partner $740 7.00 $5,180.00

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 39.75 $26,235.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 36.75 $25,357.50

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 25; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 27.)

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen personally drafted the

supplemental brief, and Mr. Forge and Mr. Isaacson reviewed it. (Dkt. No. 364-1

(Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 25; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 38; Dkt. No. 331-3

(Isaacson Decl.) ¶ 27.) Ms. Eck “spent a considerable amount of time preparing the

supplemental brief and supplemental declaration of Makaeff, including legal research,

factual research and review of relevant documents, and communications with AntiSLAPP and actual malice experts.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 27; see also

Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 43.) In addition, Ms. Eck “had numerous conversations

with Makaeff throughout the briefing process.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.)

¶ 27.)

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced for several reasons. 

(Dkt. No. 367 at 20-21.) Trump University argues that the descriptions lump together

time spent on multiple tasks, which prevents the Court from determining if the hours

spent are reasonable. (Id.) In addition, Trump University argues that there is

26Because it has already excluded all staff attorney and paralegal fees, the Court

does not include the 29.75 staff attorney hours and 23.75 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 25.) 

- 41 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 41 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

duplicative, excessive, and overstaffed time, with two partnersreviewing Ms. Jensen’s

brief, and Ms. Eck also working on the supplemental brief. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that Mr. Isaacson’s and Mr. Forge’s

time is duplicative with that of Ms. Jensen and Ms. Eck, and therefore excludes their

time. The Court also agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makesit difficultforthe Court to evaluate whether the hours of Ms. Eck are reasonable,

and as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to her hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

The Court does not reduce the hours of Ms. Jensen because all of her time was spent

on the single task of drafting. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $13,551.50 in fees for the supplemental

brief regarding actual malice. 

22. Supplemental Reply Brief Regarding Actual Malice

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

supplemental reply brief regarding actual malice by the various attorneys:27

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 3.25 $2,681.25

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 25.75 $16,995.00

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 18.00 $12,420.00

Aaron Olsen ZHE Associate $410 0.50 $205.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 26; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 28.) 

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions ofthe tasks performed. Ms. Jensen researched and prepared the

supplemental reply brief, and Mr. Isaacson reviewed it and commented on it. (Dkt. No.

364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 26; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 39; Dkt. No.

331-3 (Isaacson Decl.) ¶ 27.) Ms. Eck’s “firm” also “researched for and prepared a

27Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 12.25 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 26; Dkt. No. 364-2

(Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 28.) 

- 42 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 42 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Reply.” (Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 28; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.)

¶ 48.)

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced because the

descriptionslump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventstheCourt from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 21.) For example, there

is no breakdown of how much time was spent on research versus drafting. (Id.) In

addition, Trump University argues that Ms. Eck’s time appears duplicative of Ms.

Jensen’s firm. (Id.)

The Court agrees with Trump University that Ms. Eck’s time appears

duplicative, which is exacerbated by the failure to differentiate how much time was

spent on different tasks. Therefore, the Court excludes Ms. Eck’s hours. The Court

also excludes Mr. Olsen’s hours because it is not clear what tasks he performed. The

Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks makes it

difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the hours of Ms. Jensen and Mr.Isaacson are

reasonable, and as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See Welch, 480

F.3d at 948. 

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $16,560.25 in fees for the supplemental

reply brief regarding actual malice. 

23. Hearing on Actual Malice

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

hearing regarding actual malice by the various attorneys:28

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 0.25 $206.50

Jason Forge RGRD Partner $740 0.75 $555.00

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 1.50 $990.00

28Because it has already excluded all paralegal fees, the Court does not include

the 2.50 paralegal hours. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 27.)

- 43 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 43 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 26.75 $18,457.50

Helen Zeldes ZHE Partner $600 5.00 $3,000.00

Aaron Olsen ZHE Associate $410 3.50 $1,435.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 27; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 30.) 

Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s supplemental declarations provide the following

additional descriptions of the tasks performed. Ms. Jensen prepared for oral argument,

before it was rescheduled and Ms. Eck ultimately appeared at the oral argument

(because Ms. Jensen was then out on maternity leave.) (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp.

Decl.) ¶ 27; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶¶ 40-41.) Mr. Isaacson and Mr.

Forge assisted Ms. Eck with her preparation for the hearing. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen

Supp. Decl.) ¶ 27; Dkt. No. 331-3 (Isaacson Decl.) ¶ 27.) Ms. Jensen notes that

additional attorneys also attended the hearing, but they are not seeking that time. (Dkt.

No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 27; see also Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 41.) 

Ms. Eck “spent a considerable amount of time preparing for this hearing,

reviewing all of the Anti-SLAPP motions and Orders to date, a voluminous amount of

case law, the four volumes of Makaeff’s deposition testimony, Makaeff’s several

declarations, and voluminous documents and exhibitssubmitted by both parties.” (Dkt.

No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 29; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 49.) Ms. Eck

notes that she is not seeking seven hours of her preparation time for the hearing. (Dkt.

No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 29.) Ms. Zeldes and Mr. Olsen assisted in Ms. Eck’s

preparation for the hearing. (Id.) Ms. Eck argued at the hearing before this Court.

(Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 30; see also Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 50.) 

Trump University argues that the hours should be reduced because the

descriptionslump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventstheCourt from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 21.) For example, there

is no breakdown of how much time Ms. Eck spent preparing for the hearing, reviewing

documents, and arguing at the hearing itself. (Id.) In addition, Trump University

- 44 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 44 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

argues that there is a duplication of efforts, with three partners and one associate

preparing another partner arguing the motion. (Id.)

The Court disagrees with Trump University that the time is duplicative.

However, the Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makesit difficultforthe Court to evaluate whether the hours of Ms. Eck are reasonable,

and as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to her hours. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $3,691.50 in feesfor the hearing on actual

malice. 

24. Time Spent on Multiple Tasks

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on

“multiple tasks” by the various attorneys:

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Eric Isaacson RGRD Partner $825 8.50 $7,012.50

Rachel Jensen RGRD Partner $660 5.75 $3,795.00

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 28.) 

Ms. Jensen’s supplemental declaration states that these 14.25 hours pertain to

multiple tasks related to the anti-SLAPP proceedings, but cannot be definitely assigned

to the above procedural categories. (Id.) For example, Mr. Isaacson “spent time

researching the potential for a Rule 28(j) letter and also preparing for 9th Circuit oral

argument (which were occurring contemporaneously).” (Id.) Makaeff notes that she

is willing to reduce her requested fees by these 14.25 hours. (Dkt. No. 364 at 11 n.6.)

Trump University argues that the hours should be denied entirely because the

descriptionslump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventstheCourt from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 21-22.) For example,

there is not breakdown between how much time Mr. Isaacson spent researching versus

preparing. (Id. at 22.) In addition, Trump University notes that the time appears

duplicative of category 16 above, concerning research of a possible 28(j) letter. (Id.)

- 45 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 45 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court agrees with Trump University that these hours should be denied

entirely. The vague description of “multiple tasks” related to the anti-SLAPP litigation

prevents the Court from determining if these hours were reasonable. Moreover,

Makaeff has stated that she is willing to omit these hours.

Accordingly, the Court EXCLUDES $10,807.50 in fees for work on multiple

tasks. 

25. Bill of Fees and Costs

Makaeff’s counsel states that the following amount of time was spent on the

preparation of the Bill of Fees and Costs by the various attorneys:

Name Law

Firm

Position Hourly

Rate

Hours

Expended

Amount

Amber Eck ZHE Partner $690 22.25 $15,352.50

Aaron Olsen ZHE Associate $410 10.00 $4,100.00

(Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 31.) 

Ms. Eck states that “we spent considerable time researching and preparing the

motion, compiling all of our time records and expenses related to the Anti-SLAPP

issues over the past four years, and preparing a detailed declaration setting forth our

work performed in the case, time, lodestar, and expenses.” (Id.) She states that her

firm does not seek fees for additional time spent on the brief after June 27, 2014, or for

time spent preparing the supplemental brief or declarations. (Id.) Ms. Jensen states

that her firm also spent a “substantial amount of time” on the Bill of Fees and Costs,

but is not claiming thistime to “demonstrate the reasonableness of the requested fees.”

(Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 28.) 

Trump University argues the hours should be denied entirely because the

descriptionslump together time spent on multiple tasks, which preventsthe Court from

determining if the hours spent are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 367 at 22.) Trump University

also argues that this Court’s supplemental briefing order did not explicitly invite

Makaeff to include these fees. (Id.) 

- 46 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 46 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court agrees with Trump University that the lumping together of tasks

makesit difficult for the Court to evaluate whether the hours of Ms. Eck and Mr. Olsen

are reasonable, and as such, applies a 20 percent reduction to their hours. See Welch,

480 F.3d at 948. The Court appreciates that Ms. Jensen’s firm does not seek time for

preparation of the Bill of Fees and Costs. 

Accordingly,theCourtEXCLUDES $3,890.50 in feesfor the preparation ofBill

of Fees and Costs. 

C. Upward Multiplier

Makaeff argues that any reduction in fees should be offset by an upward

multiplier because this is a contingency fee case. (Dkt. No. 331 at 17-18; Dkt. No. 364

at 8, 20.) Trump University counters that no upward multiplier is justified here

because, among other reasons, Makaeff’s counsel are not sole practitioners, but rather

a large team of high billing attorneys. (Dkt. No. 335 at 21-25; Dkt. No. 367 at 23-25.)

TheCalifornia Supreme Court has held that a court may adjust the lodestarfigure

based on various factors, including the contingent nature of the fee award. Ketchum,

17 P.3d at 741. “The purpose of a fee enhancement, or so-called multiplier, for

contingent risk is to bring the financial incentives for attorneys enforcing important

constitutional rights, such asthose protected underthe anti-SLAPP provision, into line

with incentives they have to undertake claims for which they are paid on a

fee-for-services basis.” Id. at 742. A contingency enhancement “is intended to

approximate market-level compensation for such services, which typically includes a

premium for the risk of nonpayment or delay in payment of attorney fees.” Id. at 746.

TheCourt declinesto apply an upward multiplier here due to the contingency fee

nature of this case. The Court notes that Makaeff already argued that its higher than

average hourly rates were also justified because this is a contingency case. (Dkt. No.

331 at 15.) As such, an upward multiplier would be duplicative. Moreover, the basic

lodestar figure adequately compensates Makaeff’s counsel, and Makaeff has not met

her burden that a contingency fee enhancement is appropriate here. See Ketchum, 17

- 47 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 47 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

P.3d at 746 (“Of course, the trial court is not required to include a fee enhancement to

the basic lodestar figure for contingentrisk, exceptionalskill, or other factors, although

it retains discretion to do so in the appropriate case; moreover, the party seeking a fee

enhancement bears the burden of proof.”).

D. Conclusion

In sum, Makaeff has sought $1,333,004.2529in fees, and the Court has excluded

a total of $542,920.85 in fees as follows:

Category Fees Excluded

Staff Attorney Fees $121,047.50

Paralegal Fees $90,542.50

1. Initial Anti-SLAPP Motion $19,656.00

2. District Court Reply Brief $3,726.00

3. Opposition to Motion to Strike $2,533.50

4. District Court Hearing and Preparation $3,768.00

5. Motion for Reconsideration $13,933.50

6. Motion for Reconsideration Reply Brief $4,191.00

7. Appeal Opening Brief $66,853.75

8. Opposition to Motion to Stay $10,518.75

9. Ninth Circuit Settlement Conference $1,947.00

10. Work with Amicus on Appeal $10,821.75

11. Request for Judicial Notice $11,610.00

12. Appeal Reply Brief $19,751.00

13. Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice $6,082.50

14. Ninth Circuit Appeal Strategy $0.00

15. Ninth Circuit Hearing $13,705.00

29The Court notes that the breakdown of fees in Ms. Jensen’s and Ms. Eck’s

supplemental declarations actually totals $1,333,659.50, which is a difference of

$655.25. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp. Decl.); Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.).)

However,since neither party raised this difference, and using the lower figure benefits

Trump University, the Court uses $1,333,004.25. (Dkt. No. 331 at 18; Dkt. No. 331

(Jensen Decl.) ¶ 58; Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 55; Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp.

Decl.) ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶ 2.)

- 48 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 48 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16. Research Regarding Possible 28(j) Letter $6,187.50

17. Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc $41,529.10

18. Work with Amicus on En Banc Opposition $5,802.25

19. Strategy Regarding Remand and Motion to Transfer

Fee Motion to District Court

$9,867.00

20. Makaeff Deposition Preparation and Document

Production

$30,346.00

21. Supplemental Brief Regarding Actual Malice $13,551.50

22. Supplemental Reply Brief Regarding Actual Malice $16,560.25

23. Hearing on Actual Malice $3,691.50

24. Work on Multiple Tasks $10,807.50

25. Preparation of Bill of Fees and Costs $3,890.50

TOTAL FEES EXCLUDED $542,920.85

Accordingly, the Court AWARDS Makaeff $790,083.40 in fees. 

III. Reasonable Costs 

In addition to attorney’s fees, a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion

is entitled to recover reasonable costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1). Here,

Makaeff seeks $9,209.27 in costs for successfully litigating the anti-SLAPP motion.30

(Dkt. No. 331 at 18; Dkt. No. 364 at 19 n.11.) Specifically, Makaeff seeks the

following costs:

Category RGRD Costs ZHE Costs Total

Meals, Hotel &

Transportation

$836.49 $280.88 $1,117.37

Messenger, Overnight

Delivery

$57.85 $57.85

30Makaeff originally sought $9,812.11 in costs, but is no longer seeking

approximately $603 for the costs of postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, in

light of Trump University’s observation that California Code of Civil Procedure

§ 1033.5(b) applies. (Dkt. No. 335 at 26; Dkt. No. 364 at 19 n.11; Dkt. No. 364-1

(Jensen Supp. Decl.) ¶ 31 n.1; Dkt. No. 367 at 26.)

- 49 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 49 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Video Deposition of

Makaeff

$290.00 $290.00

Lexis, Westlaw, Online

Library Research

$4,931.21 $2,057.80 $6,989.01

Publications $299.79 $299.79

Miscellaneous

Deposition Costs

$455.25 $455.25

TOTAL COSTS $6,870.59 $2,338.68 $9,209.27

(Dkt. No. 331-1 (Jensen Decl.) ¶ 59); (Dkt. No. 331-2 (Eck Decl.) ¶ 57.)

The Court ordered Makaeff to “submit additional information substantiating

the costs requested.” (Dkt. No. 358 at 6.) The supplemental declarations of Ms. Jensen

and Ms. Eck provide additional details regarding costs. (Dkt. No. 364-1 (Jensen Supp.

Decl.) ¶¶ 31-32; Dkt. No. 364-2 (Eck Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 33-34.) Trump University argues

that the Court should deny the costs entirely for various reasons. (Dkt. No. 367 at 26-

27.) 

The Court agrees with Trump University that the charge of $225.05 for lunch

after the Ninth Circuit hearing is not compensable since it was for the “team” and

Makaeff admits that not all who attended the hearing were necessary. (Id.) The Court

also excludes Mr. Forge’s $288.41 in expenses for meals and hotel accommodations

for preparing Makaeff for her deposition since the Court has already determined that

his time was duplicative. (Id.) Otherwise, the Court determines that Makaeff’s costs

are reasonable. For example, Trump University argues that the Court should not allow

Mr. Isaacson’s online research costs because he has a high hourly rate. (Id. at 26.)

However, the fact that Mr. Isaacson is a more experienced attorney would likely reduce

his research costs.

Therefore, the Court excludes $513.46 in costs. Accordingly, the Court

AWARDS Makaeff $8,695.81 in costs.

///

- 50 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 50 of

 51
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Makaeff’s

request for fees and costs (Dkt. No. 331);

(2) the Court AWARDS Makaeff $790,083.40 in fees;

(3) the Court AWARDS Makaeff $8,695.81 in costs;

(4) the Court GRANTS Makaeff’s ex parte application to file a limited

response (Dkt. No. 368).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 9, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 51 - 10cv0940 GPC (WVG) 

Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 404 Filed 04/09/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 51 of

 51