Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00658/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00658-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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 - 04cv658

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANNE CORNWELL, doing business

as Sisterlocks,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04-CV-658 H (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

vs. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

DEBRA BELTON, et al.,

Defendant.

On April 14, 2005, the Court granted plaintiff Joanne Cornwell’s motion to strike

defendant Debra Belton’s counterclaim for defamation pursuant to California’s “anti-SLAPP”

provisions, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16. (Doc. No. 49.) Following a trial and cross-appeals,

the Ninth Circuit on June 5, 2007 remanded the case for a calculation of appropriate attorney’s

fees relating to plaintiff’s successful motion to strike. (See Doc. Nos. 127, 129.)

Background

The Court originally set a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees for

October 22, 2007. (Doc. No. 128.) Due in part to the parties’ conferences before the

magistrate judge and their representations regarding a potential settlement, the Court

continued the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to November 26, 2007, and then to December

10, 2007. (Doc. Nos. 136, 143.) On December 10, 2007, neither party appeared and the

Court scheduled a status conference for December 18, 2007. (Doc. Nos. 145, 147.) 

Case 3:04-cv-00658-H-BLM Document 149 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 3
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 - 04cv658

At the status conference, the Court took plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under

submission. (Doc. No. 148.) The Court informed the parties that if a settlement indeed had

been consummated a joint motion to dismiss should be filed by January 3, 2008. (Id.) The

parties have not filed a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court will proceed to a

decision on plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees. The motion has been fully briefed by the

parties, see Doc. Nos. 123, 126, 135, and the Court continues to find this matter appropriate

for resolution without oral argument. 

Discussion

Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on her successful

motion to strike. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16(c); see Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer

& Susman, 47 Cal. App. 4th 777, 785 (1996). Generally, a reasonable fee is determined by

reference to “the ‘lodestar’ figure, which is the number of hours reasonably expended

multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th

Cir. 1992). A reasonable hourly rate “is that prevailing in the community for similar

work.” PLCM Group v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095 (2000).

Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,450. Defendant contends that

several portions of plaintiff’s request represent duplicative billing or do not relate to

plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff lodged a copy of an itemized statement of the

tasks performed by the attorneys and support staff of the law firm Garrison & McInnis,

LLP, in connection with plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motion. (Not. Lodg. ISO Plf’s. Mot.

Atty’s. Fees (“Lodgment”), Ex. A.) The itemized statement reflects 42.70 hours of work by

plaintiff’s attorneys and their support staff, for a total amount of $14,147.50. (Lodgment

Ex. A at 6.) The hourly rate of Gregory M. Garrison, plaintiff’s lead counsel and a partner

in the firm, was $400. (Decl. of Gregory M. Garrison ISO Plf’s. Mot. Atty’s. Fees ¶ 3.) 

Amelia a. McDermott, appellate and law and motion counsel at Garrison & McInnis, LLP,

billed at her regular rate of $350 per hour. (Id. ¶ 5.) Associates at Garrison & McInnis,

LLP, who do not perform appellate work bill at the rate of $250 per hour, although the

itemization submitted by plaintiff does not reflect work by such associates. (See Garrison

Case 3:04-cv-00658-H-BLM Document 149 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 04cv658

Decl. ¶ 6.) Work performed by paralegals and law clerks was billed at $125 per hour. (Id.

¶ 7.)

The Court has carefully reviewed the itemized statement submitted by plaintiff’s

attorneys as well as the parties’ briefs and concludes that $8,000 represents a reasonable

amount of attorney’s fees in connection with the district court litigation regarding

plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motion. The Court notes that the Ninth Circuit already has awarded

plaintiff attorney’s fees of $3,800 for the anti-SLAPP portion of the parties’ cross appeals.

Conclusion

The Court awards $8,000 in attorney’s fees to plaintiff Joanne Cornwell in

connection with her successful anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant’s counterclaim. As

this disposes of the only remaining issue in this case following the remand from the Ninth

Circuit, the Court orders this case closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 7, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-00658-H-BLM Document 149 Filed 01/07/08 Page 3 of 3