Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00554/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00554-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONOMA FOODS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SONOMA CHEESE FACTORY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

 /

No. C 07-00554 JSW

ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Now before the Court is the motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of

Civil Procedure 425.16(c) filed by plaintiff and counter-defendant Sonoma Foods, Inc.’s

(“Sonoma Foods”). The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral

argument and it is hereby deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing

set for September 21, 2007 is HEREBY VACATED. Having considered the parties’ arguments

and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby grants in part and denies in part Sonoma Foods’

motion. 

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, Sonoma Foods filed a special

motion to strike the thirteen counter-claims filed by defendant and counter claimants Sonoma

Cheese Factory, LLC (“Sonoma Cheese Factory”) and counter claimant L. Peter Viviani (“Peter

Viviani”) (collectively, (“Counter-claimants”). The facts alleged by Counter-claimants are 

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

set forth in the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Sonoma Foods’ special motion

to strike and motion to dismiss and will not be repeated here. Sonoma Foods now moves for

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in striking two of Counter-claimants’ claims.

ANALYSIS

A “prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or

her attorney’s fees and costs.” Cal. Code Civil Proc. § 425.16(c). An award of attorney’s fees

to a prevailing party on a special motion to strike is mandatory. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

425.16(c); Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard, 101 Cal. App. 4th 211, 215 (2002) (citing

Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1131 (2001)). “[A] party who partially prevails on an

anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the

motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing

the motion.” Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 328, 340 (2006). “The

determination whether a party prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion lies within the broad

discretion of a trial court.” Id.

When work on a motion to strike relating to successful and unsuccessful claims involve

discrete factual and legal issues, a court may limit the fees award to those incurred in moving on

the successful claims. ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal. App. 4th 993, 1020 (2001);

Mann, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 339 n.5. However, when the claims challenged by a motion to

strike involve overlapping factual or legal issues, the prevailing party is not necessarily entitled

to all fees incurred. Mann, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 344. Rather, “the court must consider the

significance of the overall relief obtained by the prevailing party in relation to the hours

reasonably expended on the litigation and whether the expenditure of counsel’s time was

reasonable in relation to the success achieved.” Id. (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,

440 (1983)). 

Here, Sonoma Foods moved to strike thirteen counter-claims. The Court held that

Counter-claimants’ federal claims were not subject to Section 425.16, and thus denied the

motion to strike as to these claims. Moreover, the Court held that only two of Counterclaimants’ state law claims – claims entitled common law injury to business reputation and

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Sonoma Foods represents that it barely spent any time on the thirteenth claim for

declaratory relief

2

 Sonoma Foods also sought $1750 it anticipated expending in attending a hearing on

the instant motion. Because the Court vacated the hearing on this motion, the Court

subtracted the $1750 from the amount sought by Sonoma Foods.

3

unjust enrichment – arose from protected activity, and thus denied the motion to strike as to the

remaining nine state-law claims. The Court granted the motion to strike the claims entitled

common law injury to business reputation and unjust enrichment on the grounds that Counterclaimants failed to demonstrate that these purported claims were valid under California law. 

Although striking these two claims did not greatly reduce the legal or factual issues remaining

in this action, striking the purported claim entitled common law injury to business reputation

did eliminate the issue of whether Sonoma Cheese Factory’s business reputation was injured. 

Striking the purported claim for unjust enrichment eliminated the issue of whether Sonoma

Cheese Factory would be injured if the Court were to compel Sonoma Cheese Factory from

using certain trademarks. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that the results

were so insignificant that Sonoma Foods did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the

motion to strike. See Mann, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 340. Thus, Sonoma Foods was the prevailing

party on its motion to strike, and so the Court must determine the amount of attorneys’ fees to

award.

Sonoma Foods incurred $52,078 in attorneys’ fees and $1,609 in costs in bringing their

special motion to strike and motion to dismiss. Sonoma Foods contends that at least two-thirds

of these fees and costs were expended in bringing the motion to strike and that it spent

equivalent amounts of time on each of the twelve of the counter-claims.1

 Thus, Sonoma Foods

seeks a total of $5965, plus $6370 it incurred in attorneys’ fees in bringing the instant motion.2

Although the Court finds that both the number of hours and rates are reasonable based on the

entire motion to strike and motion for attorneys fees, the Court must determine whether the

amount requested should be reduced in consideration of “whether the expenditure of counsel’s

time was reasonable in relation to the success achieved.” See Mann, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 344. 

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

The Court finds it appropriate to reduce the requested amount in consideration of the

overall relief achieved by Sonoma Foods in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the

litigation. See Mann, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 344. The Court finds that while striking the

purported claims for unjust enrichment and common law injury to business reputation did

eliminate a couple of issues from this action, the overall relief achieved by Sonoma Foods,

especially when considered in light of what Sonoma Foods sought by its special motion to

strike, while not insubstantial, was not great. 

In light of the above considerations, the Court finds it appropriate to reduce the

requested award by fifty percent. Accordingly, the Court awards Defendants $6167.50 in

attorneys’ fees and costs.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Sonoma Foods’

motion for attorneys’ fees. Although the Court finds Sonoma Foods is the prevailing party, the

Court is reducing the requested award by fifty percent in consideration of the overall relief

achieved by Sonoma Foods. The Court awards attorneys’ fees and costs to Sonoma Foods in

the amount of $6167.50. Such payment shall be made by no later than September 28, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00554-JSW Document 63 Filed 09/18/07 Page 4 of 4