Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02783/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02783-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1367 Other Property Damage

---

1

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO PUPPY, INC., a 

California corporation; DAVID 

SALINAS and VERONICA 

SALINAS, husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO ANIMAL DEFENSE 

TEAM, business entity of unknown 

form; ANIMAL PROTECTION 

AND RESCUE LEAGUE, a 

California 501(c)(3) corporation; 

COMPANION ANIMAL 

PROTECTION SOCIETY, 

Delaware non-profit corporation; 

BRYAN PEASE, a California 

resident,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART 

MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S 

FEES

Defendants have filed motions for attorney’s fees. For the reasons 

discussed below, Defendants’ motions for attorney’s fees are GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART.

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 20
2

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

I. BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint asserting 

twelve causes of action. Defendants Animal Protection and Rescue League 

(“APRL”), Bryan Pease (“Pease”), and Companion Animal Protection Society 

(“CAPS”) each brought a special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ complaint 

pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. On September 11, 2014, the 

Court granted each Defendant’s special motion to strike and directed each 

Defendant to file a motion for attorney’s fees. The Court also gave Plaintiffs 

leave to file an amended complaint only as to Count VI, which alleged a 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. 

On September 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a two-page First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”). On November 6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed what the Court 

considered as a motion for leave to amend their FAC and a proposed Second 

Amended Complaint. On June 12, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ FAC 

and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the FAC. 

On June 29, 2015, the Court ordered the Singleton Law Firm to submit 

papers itemizing its attorney’s fees in its representation of Defendant Pease.

//

//

//

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 20
3

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendants APRL, Pease, and CAPS each seek to recover the 

attorney’s fees they incurred in connection with prosecuting the special 

motions to strike and the instant motions for attorney’s fees. 

As the prevailing parties on their special motions to strike, Defendants 

are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 

425.16(c). Defendants may recover attorney’s fees and costs only for the 

motion to strike, not the entire litigation. Christian Research Inst. v. Alnor, 

165 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1320 (2008) (citations omitted).

The amount of the prevailing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees is 

calculated by utilizing the lodestar method. Camacho v. Bridgeport 

Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). To calculate the “lodestar,” 

the court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably 

expended on the litigation by a reasonable rate. Morales v. City of San 

Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). There is a strong presumption that 

the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee. Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 

16, 18 (9th Cir. 1994). 

However, courts may adjust the lodestar figure upward or downward 

based upon the following factors enunciated in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, 

Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975): (1) the time and labor required, (2) the 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 20
4

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to 

perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by 

the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) 

whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the 

client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, 

(9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the 

“undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional 

relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. “Among the 

subsumed factors presumably taken into account in either the reasonable 

hours component or the reasonable rate component of the lodestar 

calculation are: (1) the novelty and complexity of the issues, (2) the special 

skill and experience of counsel, (3) the quality of representation, (4) the 

results obtained and (5) the contingent nature of the fee agreement.” 

Morales, 96 F.3d at 364 n.9. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should not be granted attorney’s fees 

because Plaintiffs have not acted in “bad faith.” Doc. 71 at 3. But as the 

prevailing parties in their special motions to strike, Defendants are “entitled” 

to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c); 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 4 of 20
5

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Christian Research Inst., 165 Cal. App. 4th at 1321.

Plaintiffs do not dispute the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged 

or the number of hours billed by each of the attorneys who represented 

Defendants APRL, Pease, and CAPS. 

A. Animal Protection and Rescue League (“APRL”)

Defendant Animal Protection and Rescue League (“APRL”) is 

represented by attorneys David Simon (“Simon”) and Bryan Pease 

(“Pease”). Simon’s hourly rate is $425 per hour. Pease’s hourly rate is $375

per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates 

in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable. See Doc. 

57, Simon Decl., Exh. A. 

APRL seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $67,959.38. Simon billed 

40.25 hours at $425 per hour and Pease billed 75.20 hours at $375 per hour. 

Both attorneys requested a 1.5 lodestar multiplier to account for the 

contingent nature of their representation of APRL. As detailed below, the 

Court will not grant the full amount requested. The Court makes reductions 

for, among other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks and work that 

should not be billed to the client.

//

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 5 of 20
6

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1. David Simon’s Fees

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for 

Reduction

12/13/13 Review APRL 

filing

0.35 0 Vague 

description; 

presumably for 

opposition to 

TRO, work not 

related to motion 

to strike

12/13/13 Exchange 

emails with 

Pease re filing 

and hearing

0.40 0 Vague 

description; 

presumably for 

opposition to 

TRO, work not 

related to motion 

to strike

12/13/13 Review and 

research basis 

for Plaintiffs’ 

TRO 

application

2.00 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/13/13 Prepare for 

TRO hearing

0.75 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/13/13 Participate in 

telephone 

hearing re TRO

1.25 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

1/10/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.35 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

1/17/14,

2/5/14

Review notice 

of voluntary 

dismissal 

against San 

Diego Humane 

Society, City of 

0.40

(0.20 for 

each 

voluntary 

dismissal)

0.10 Each notice was 

less than onepage and did not 

require more than 

a minute to review

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 6 of 20
7

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

San Diego; 

related emails

1/23/14 Review and 

reply to 

multiple emails 

from counsel; 

reply to email 

from Singleton

0.45 0 Vague 

description; 

presumably work 

not related to 

motion to strike 

since already filed

1/30/14 Review joint 

motion to 

extend time to 

respond

0.20 0.10 Joint motion less 

than two pages 

long would take 

no more than a

few minutes to 

review

2/13/14 Review email 

from court 

clerk; email 

and phone call 

with Pease re 

same

0.40 0 Vague description

2/14/14 Review 

numerous 

emails re 

changing date 

of anti-SLAPP 

hearing

0.20 0.10 Scheduling a 

hearing should 

not require the 

requested time

2/18/14 Review email 

from court 

clerk; email 

Pease re same

0.20 0 Vague description

2/22/14 Phone call with 

Pease

0.20 0 Vague description

3/3/14 Phone call and 

email with 

Pease re case 

status

0.35 0 Vague description

3/8/14, 

3/19/14, 

3/27/14

Review order 

scheduling 

settlement 

0.60 0.10 Scheduling orders 

not substantive 

that requires time 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 7 of 20
8

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

conference and

calendar

to review; 

calendaring 

should not require 

requested time

5/5/14, 

5/6/14, 

5/20/14 

5/24/14

Emails with 

Pease; review 

motion and 

orders re: 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.40 0 Vague 

description; work 

not related to 

motion to strike

9/23/14 Download and 

review 

Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended 

Complaint and 

exhibits

0.35 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

10/9/14 Review and 

reply to emails 

from cocounsel re 

12(b)(6) motion

0.35 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

Simon billed approximately 7.95 hours on the motion for attorney’s 

fees. The Court finds that 5 hours would have been sufficient to prepare the 

motion for attorney’s fees.

2. Bryan Pease’s Fees

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for 

Reduction

12/2/13, 

12/3/13

Review notice 

of deficiency 

from clerk

0.20 

(0.10 for 

each 

notice)

0.10 Notice is not a 

substantive notice 

or order that 

requires much 

time to review 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 8 of 20
9

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

12/12/13 Review motion 

for TRO

4.50 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/12/13 Review email 

from court clerk

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike; 

vague description

12/13/13 Opposition to 

TRO

3 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/13/13 Review City of 

San Diego’s 

Opposition to 

TRO

1 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/13/13 Hearing on 

TRO

1 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/16/13 Review order 

granting joint 

motion to 

extend time to 

respond and 

“minute entry 

for 

proceedings”

0.20 0 Order and minute 

entry not 

substantive that 

requires time to 

review

12/11/13,

12/30/13,

1/30/13

Review joint 

motion to 

extend time to 

respond

0.30

(0.10 for 

each joint 

motion)

0.10 Each joint motion 

less than two 

pages long would 

take no more than 

a minute to review

1/3/14, 

2/5/14

Review order 

granting joint 

motion to 

extend time to 

respond

0.20

(0.10 for 

each 

order)

0 Three-sentence 

order not 

substantive that 

requires time to 

review

1/10/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

2.50 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

1/17/14 Review order 

denying 

Plaintiffs’ 

0.20 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike; 

one-page order 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 9 of 20
10

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

would take no 

more than a

minute to review 

1/17/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

notice of 

appearance

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike; 

notice is not 

substantive that 

requires time to 

review

1/18/14, 

2/5/14

Review notice 

of voluntary 

dismissal 

against San 

Diego Humane 

Society, City of 

San Diego

0.20 

(0.10 for 

each 

voluntary 

dismissal)

0.10 Each notice was 

less than onepage and did not 

require more than 

a minute to review

1/23/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.50 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike 

1/23/14 Review order 

to show cause 

re Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.20 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike; 

one-paragraph 

order not 

substantive that 

requires time to 

review

2/6/14 Review order 

granting 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.20 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike; 

one-page order 

would take no 

more than a

minute to review

2/14/14 Email with 

court clerk and 

other attorneys 

re: scheduling 

hearing

0.30 0.10 Scheduling a 

hearing should 

not require the 

requested time

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 10 of 20
11

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2/18/14 Email with 

court clerk and 

other attorneys 

re: hearing off 

calendar

0.20 0.10 Canceling a 

hearing should 

not require the 

requested time

3/3/14 Email with 

court clerk and 

other attorneys 

re: status of 

anti-SLAPP

ruling

0.20 0.10 Asking court re 

status of order 

should not require 

the requested 

time

3/7/14 Review order 

denying as 

moot San 

Diego Humane 

Society’s 

motion to 

dismiss

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

4/24/14 Review order 

to show cause 

re Plaintiffs’ 

attorney failing 

to appear at 

ENE

0.20 0.10 Two-page OSC 

should not require 

the requested 

time

5/2/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

declaration in 

response to 

OSC

0.30 0.10 One-sentence 

declaration did not 

require more than 

a minute to review

5/13/14 Phone with 

clerk re: antiSLAPP hearing 

off calendar, 

correspond 

with other 

attorneys

0.50 0.10 Vague 

description;

canceling a 

hearing should 

not require the 

requested time

5/20/14 Review order 

re Plaintiffs’ 

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 11 of 20
12

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

5/23/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.50 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

6/2/14 Review order 

to show cause 

re Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

7/12/14 Review order 

granting 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

motion to 

withdraw

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

8/25/14 Review notice 

of substitution 

of attorney

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

9/18/14 Review motion 

to substitute 

attorney

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

9/23/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended 

Complaint

0.40 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

9/24/14 Meeting with 

Cardiff re: FAC

0.60 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

9/30/14 Review order 

re FAC

0.1 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

Simon projected that he would work 8 hours and Pease projected that 

he would work 12 hours to “draft reply papers and prepare for and participate 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 12 of 20
13

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

in hearing on fee motion.” The Court finds that 3 hours each would have 

been more than sufficient for Simon and Pease to analyze, research, and 

draft the reply. 

The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into 

account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the 

recovery of 23.5 hours worked by Simon at the hourly rate of $425 and 48.8

hours worked by Pease at the rate of $375, for a total of $28,287.50. The 

Court finds that the hourly rate provides adequate and reasonable 

compensation and a review of the Kerr factors does not support a lodestar 

multiplier. 

B. Bryan Pease (“Pease”)

Defendant Bryan Pease (“Pease”) is represented by attorney Todd T. 

Cardiff (“Cardiff”) and the Singleton Law Firm, APC. Cardiff’s hourly rate is 

$350 per hour. Attorneys Gerald Singleton (“Singleton”) and Jessica 

McHarrie (“McHarrie”) and Paralegal Tyler Waters (“Waters”) from the 

Singleton Law Firm also represented Pease. Singleton’s hourly rate is $650 

per hour. McHarrie’s hourly rate is $175 per hour. Waters’ hourly rate is $65 

per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates 

in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable except as to 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 13 of 20
14

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Singleton for whom the Court finds $425 to be a reasonable hourly rate (the 

same as for David Simon).

Pease seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $33,475.00.

1

 Cardiff 

billed 42 hours ($14,700.00) and requested a 1.3 lodestar multiplier to 

account for the contingent nature of his representation of Pease 

($19,110.00). Cardiff also billed an additional 7 hours ($2450.00) for Pease’s 

Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees. 

Singleton billed 8.75 hours ($5687.50), McHarrie billed 35.4 hours 

($6195.00), and Waters billed 0.5 hours ($32.50). The Singleton Law Firm 

did not request a lodestar multiplier. As detailed below, the Court will not

grant the full amount requested. The Court makes reductions for, among 

other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks and work that should not 

be billed to the client.

//

//

//

 

1 Pease’s moving papers state $31,317.50 as the total amount of attorney’s 

fees. However, the Singleton Law Firm corrected the number of hours it 

actually billed in its supplemental submission. Cardiff also billed additional 

time for drafting Pease’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motions for Attorney’s Fees. Therefore, according to the Court’s calculation, 

the correct total amount of attorney’s fees sought is $33,475.00.

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 14 of 20
15

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1. Todd T. Cardiff’s Fees

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for 

Reduction

12/12/13 Telephone call 

with Plaintiffs’ 

attorney

0.10 0 Vague description

12/13/13 Review and 

analyze TRO

1.50 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/13/13 Review and 

analyze 

APRL’s 

Opposition to 

TRO

0.40 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/13/13 Review and 

analyze City of 

San Diego’s 

Opposition to 

TRO

0.80 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/13/13 TRO hearing 

and travel

3.00 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/19/13 Review and 

analyze City of 

San Diego’s 

discovery on 

Plaintiffs

0.20 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

12/20/13 Review City of 

San Diego’s 

Notice to 

Produce

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

1/10/14 Review and 

analyze 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

notice of 

motion to 

withdraw

0.50 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

1/31/14 Telephone call 

with client re: 

0.30 0 Vague 

description; work 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 15 of 20
16

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Plaintiffs and 

scheduling

not related to 

motion to strike

2/3/14 Review 

stipulation for 

City of San 

Diego to 

extend time to 

respond

0.20 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

5/4/14 Review 

Plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s 

declaration re: 

failure to 

appear at 

settlement 

conference; 

discuss with 

client

0.60 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

9/23/14 Review and 

analyze 

Plaintiffs’ FAC

0.40 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

9/24/14 Discuss with 

paralegal 

calendar for 

filing response 

to FAC; file 

maintenance

0.10 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

9/24/14 Meeting with 

client to 

discuss FAC

0.60 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

Cardiff billed approximately 10.7 hours on the motion for attorney’s 

fees and stated that he anticipates spending an additional 2.5 hours on the 

same fee motion. The Court finds that 5 hours would have been sufficient to 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 16 of 20
17

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

prepare the motion for attorney’s fees.

Cardiff also billed 10 hours to draft Pease’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees. The Court finds that 

5 hours would have been more than sufficient to analyze, research, and draft 

the reply. 

2. Gerald Singleton’s Fees

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for 

Reduction

1/14/14 Exchanged 

emails with 

client and 

emailed Tyler 

re issues 

raised by client

0.10 0 Vague description 

of emails and

work not related 

to motion to strike

The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into 

account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the 

recovery of 25 hours worked by Cardiff at the hourly rate of $350 ($8750.00). 

The Court finds that the hourly rate provides adequate and reasonable 

compensation and a review of the Kerr factors does not support a lodestar 

multiplier. The Court will also allow the recovery of an additional 5 hours 

($1750.00) to Cardiff for drafting Pease’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees. The Court allows the recovery of 

8.65 hours worked by Singleton ($3676.25), 35.4 hours worked by McHarrie 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 17 of 20
18

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

($6195.00), and 0.5 hours worked by Tyler ($32.50). In sum, the Court 

awards a total fee award of $20,403.75.

C. Companion Animal Protection Society (“CAPS”)

Defendant Companion Animal Protection Society (“CAPS”) is 

represented by attorneys Gretel Smith (“Smith”) and John T. Maher 

(“Maher”). Smith’s hourly rate is $250 per hour. Maher’s hourly rate is $350 

per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates 

in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable.

CAPS seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,087.50 (Smith billed 

53.8 hours at $250 per hour and Maher billed 13.25 hours at $350 per hour).2 

As detailed below, the Court will not grant the full amount requested. The 

Court makes reductions for, among other things, excessive time spent on 

certain tasks and work that should not be billed to the client.

1. Gretel Smith’s Fees

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for 

Reduction

12/2/13 Email to/from 

Maher

0.40 0 Vague description 

of email before 

 

2 CAPS’ moving papers state that Maher billed 13.5 hours for a total amount 

of $4631.50 in attorney’s fees. However, upon review of Maher’s time 

details, it appears that Maher billed 13.25 hours for a total amount of 

$4637.50 in attorney’s fees.

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 18 of 20
19

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

retainer 

agreement sent

12/3/13 Telephone call 

with Maher re: 

CAPS 

representation

0.50 0 Not a billable task

12/6/13 Draft and email 

retainer 

agreement 

0.60 0 Not a billable task

3/19/14,

4/15/14,

10/10/14

Telephone call 

with court clerk 

re: hearing 

date

0.60 

(0.20 for 

each call)

0.10 Each call did not 

require more than

a few minutes

12/20/13,

12/23/13,

1/9/14,

Voicemail left 

for Plaintiffs’ 

attorney

0.60

(0.20 for 

each 

voicemail)

0.10 Each voicemail 

should not take 

twelve minutes; 

Vague description 

re: voicemail

9/23/14 Review First 

Amended 

Complaint 

(“FAC”) 

0.50 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

10/13/14 Draft motion to 

dismiss FAC

2.40 0 Work not related 

to motion to strike

2. John T. Maher’s Fees

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for 

Reduction

8/25/14 Emails to Smith 

and “DH” and 

check docket 

for decision

0.25 0 Vague description 

of emails and not 

a billable task

The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into 

account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the 

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 19 of 20
20

13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

recovery of 48.4 hours worked by Smith at the hourly rate of $250 and 13 

hours worked by Maher at the hourly rate of $350, for a total of $16,650.00. 

No upward or downward adjustment to the lodestar amount is warranted.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motions for attorney’s 

fees are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court awards 

Defendant Animal Protection and Rescue League attorney’s fees in the 

amount of $28,287.50. The Court awards Defendant Bryan Pease attorney’s 

fees in the amount of $20,403.75. The Court awards Defendant Companion 

Animal Protection Society attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,650.00. The 

Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly against Plaintiffs jointly and severally 

in the above amounts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-02783-BTM-DHB Document 78 Filed 09/28/15 Page 20 of 20