Filed 3/25/15 Shames v. Peffer CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SHAMES, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. DAVID PEFFER et al., Defendants and Respondents. D065737

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00036966-

CU-DF-CTL)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald S. Prager, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Shames, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aguirre & Sevenson and Ma ria C. Severson for Defenda nts and Respondents. Plaintiff Michael Shames appeals from orders awarding attorney fees to defendants David Peffer and Michael Aguirre af ter they prevailed in special motions to2 strike brought under the anti-SLAPP st atute (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16). 1 Shames contends (1) Aguirre should not have been awarded attorney fees because he was represented by the law firm in which he is a partner and thus was effectively selfrepresented; and (2) the fee award to Pe ffer was improper because Peffer's anti-SLAPP motion was largely duplicative of Aguirre's, and the amount of attorney fees incurred by Peffer was not sufficiently supported by th e records submitted by his attorney. We conclude that Shames's arguments are with out merit, and we accordingly affirm the orders.
I FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND Shames, who was the executive director of Utility Consumer's Action Network, was sued by Peffer in a derivative lawsu it alleging various types of misconduct by Shames. Aguirre was Peffer's attorney of re cord in the derivative lawsuit. Based on negative statements about Shames made by Peffer and Aguirre in connection with the derivative lawsuit and related disputes, Shames filed the in stant lawsuit against Peffer and Aguirre alleging libel a nd interference with prospective economic relations. 2

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further stat utory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. SLAPP is an acronym for strate gic lawsuit against public participation. ( Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1109 & fn. 1.)
2 In designating the record for this a ppeal, Shames did not include the complaint that he filed against Aguirre and Peffer, alt hough from other materi als in the record it appears that the complaint included causes of action for libel and interference with prospective economic relations.3 Peffer and Aguirre both filed special moti ons to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing that Shames's complaint arose from protected activity and that Shames coul d not establish a probability of prevailing on his claims. Aguirre filed his anti-SLAPP moti on on June 7, 2013, with a he aring set for September 6. Peffer filed his motion on June 21, with a hearing set for November 15. In their special motions to strike, both Peffer and Aguirre were represented by the law firm, Aguirre, Morris & Severson LLP, in which Aguirre is a partner. One of the firm's partners, Maria C. Severson, perfo rmed the work on th e anti-SLAPP motions, along with one of the firm's associates. As the legal issues presented by Peffer's and Aguirre's special motions to strike were th e same, the content of the two motions were nearly identical, and both motions were supp orted by a single set of common supporting declarations. The trial court granted Ag uirre's special motion to strike on September 9, 2013, striking the causes of action for libel and interference with prospective economic relations. Shames decided not to oppose Pe ffer's special motion to strike, and the trial court granted Peffer's motion on No vember 15, also striking the causes of action for libel and interference with prosp ective economic relations. 3

3 Because the complaint is not in the appe llate record, we are not able to determine whether, in striking the causes of action iden tified in the minute orders ruling on the special motions to strike, the trial court stru ck all of the causes of action that Shames alleged against Aguirre and Peffer. In his a ppellate briefing, Shames asserts, without explaining further, that as to Pe ffer, the trial court struck only "three of the five cause of action" and that "two causes of action against Peffe r remained."4 Aguirre and Peffer both file d motions pursuant to secti on 425.16, subdivision (c) to recover the attorney fees and costs that they incurred as prevailing parties in their special motions to strike. Peffer sought an attorney fee award of $37,474 and $185 in costs. Aguirre sought an award of $20,765 in attorney fees and $185 in costs. In support of both motions, Severson filed declarations that attached fee and cost charts describing the work that she and her associate performed in connection with the anti-SLAPP motions and the attorney fees mo tions. Severson explained that Aguirre's and Peffer's motions were both prepared in May and early J une 2013, although Peffer's motion was filed two weeks after Aguirre's. Fu rther, because of the duplicative nature of the motions, Severson chose to include $15 ,275 in fees incurre d in performing the preliminary work of reviewing the complain t and conducting factual and legal research for the special motions to stri ke when compiling the list of fees sought in Peffer's fee motion, but she omitted those preliminary fees from the list of fees sought in Aguirre's fee motion. Shames opposed the attorn ey fee motions. As to bot h Peffer and Aguirre, Shames argued that the fees claimed were excessive. In addition, as to Aguirre, Shames argued that Aguirre was a self-represen ted party who could not recover attorney fees because he was represented by the law firm in which he is a partner. The trial court awarded attorney fees to Aguirre in the amount requested, i.e., $20,765 plus costs. As to Peffer, the trial court awarded attorney fees but reduced the amount of the fee award from what Peffer had requested. Explaining that Aguirre's and Peffer's moving papers for the anti-SLAPP motions were nearly identical and that5 Shames did not oppose Peffer's anti-SLAPP mo tion, the trial court awarded $12,500 in fees to Peffer instead of the $37,4 74 in fees that he had requested. Shames appeals from the orders awar ding fees to Aguirre and Peffer. 4
II DISCUSSION
A. Aguirre Was Not a Self-represented Party Barred from Recovering Attorney Fees We first consider Shames's contention that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to Aguirre because Aguirre was represented by a law fi rm in which he is a partner. In this context, " ' "[ t]he issue of a party's entitlement to attorney's fees is a legal issue which we review de novo." ' " ( Ellis , supra , 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 252.) With certain exceptions, the anti-SLAPP statute provid es for a mandatory award of attorney fees to a defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike. (§ 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) "An exception to this fee-shifting provision applies to self-represented attorneys." ( Ellis , supra , 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 253.) "[A] party, whether or not he is an attorney, who is not represented by counsel and who litigates an anti-SLAPP motion on his own behalf may not recover attorney fees under the statute." ( Taheri Law Group v.
Evans (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 494, italics added.) This rule, which is based on the premise that "an 'attorney who chooses to litig ate in propria persona' by that choice 'does not pay or become liable to pa y consideration in exchange fo r legal representation,' " has

4 "An appeal may be taken from an order aw arding attorney fees for a successful anti-SLAPP motion." ( Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 250 ( Ellis ).)6 also been applied in the context of other a ttorney fee-shifting prov isions, such as Civil Code section 1717. ( Ellis , at p. 253, citing Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.) Based on the rule against recovery of a ttorney fees for self-represented parties, case law also holds that when a law firm defendant is represente d in litigation by the law firm's own attorneys (o r closely associated "of counsel" a ttorneys), the law firm is a selfrepresented party and thus canno t recover attorney fees. ( Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Co. Ltd. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1490 ( Soni ); Sands & Associates v. Juknavorian (2012) 209 Cal.App. 4th 1269, 1273; Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1211.) However, the instant case is neither a si tuation in which Aguirre's law firm has been sued and is providing representation by its own attorneys, nor a situation in which Aguirre is acting as his own lawyer. Instead, Aguirre has been sued as an individual , and he has retained other attorneys , who happen to work in his own law firm, to represent him. The rule that applies in this case is set forth in Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co . (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 212 ( Gilbert ). Gilbert explained that "a lawyer represented by other members of his law firm is entitled to recove r reasonable attorney fees where the representation in volved the lawyer's personal in terests and not those of the firm." ( Id . at p. 214.) "[W]here an attorney litig ant is represented by members of his or her firm . . . , the represented attorney seek s to recover fees for work done by others on his behalf," and "it would be inequitable in th e extreme to permit [a pa rty] to recover fees incurred by outside counsel, bu t deny him such recovery mere ly because his counsel are members of the same law firm as he." ( Id . at p. 223.) Thus, under the established rule,7 "an attorney litigant who is represented by other attorneys in a matter involving the attorney's personal interests may recover attorney fees, even if represented by other attorneys within [ his or her own ] firm ." ( Soni , supra , 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 1488, italics added; see also Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 96 [rule against the recovery of attorney fees by a self-represented lawyer "does not preclude the recovery of fees for other attorneys and pa ralegals hired by [the lawyer] to represent him, even if they work in his law firm"].) Shames argues that this cas e does not involve Aguirre's personal interests because the claims against Aguirre arose from his prof essional work as a lawyer at a law firm. We disagree. Shames has sued Aguirre personally as an individual, not as a representative of the law firm, and has not name d the law firm as a defendant. Therefore, any liability against Aguirre in this case woul d be personal to Aguirre and involves his own financial interests, not thos e of the limited liability law firm in which he is a partner. Indeed, in Gilbert , the lawyer entitled to recover his a ttorney fees had been sued by his client's tenant based on legal work he performed for the client in a landlord-tenant dispute. ( Gilbert , supra , 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 214.) Focu sing on the fact that the lawyer had been sued in his personal capacity, the court concluded that an award of fees was proper because the lawyer's own personal interests were at stake, not those of his law firm. ( Id . at p. 217 [the attorney represented by his law firm was "entitled to his attorney fees because he was sued pers onally"].) The same result a pplies here. Although Aguirre8 was sued based on his representa tion of a client while a partne r in a law firm, he was sued personally, and thus his own pe rsonal interests are at stake, not those of his law firm. 5
We therefore conclude that there is no me rit to Shames's conten tion that Aguirre is barred from recovering his attorney fees on the ground that he was purportedly selfrepresented in this litigation.
B. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discre tion in Making the Attorney Fee Award to Peffer We now turn to Shames's contention that the trial court improperly awarded $12,500 in attorney fees to Peffer as the prevailing party in a special motion to strike because the fees were excessive or duplica tive of the fees recovered by Aguirre or not sufficiently supported by the re cords submitted by Peffer. "We review an anti-SLAPP attorney fee award under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. . . . The trial court's fee determination ' " 'will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced th at it is clearly wrong.' " ' " ( Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal. App.4th 1315, 1322 , citation omitted ( Christian Research ).)

5 Although the argument is not clearly set fo rth, Shames also appears to contend that although nominally brought agai nst Aguirre, this lawsuit is in effect a lawsuit against Aguirre's law firm because Aguirre has not esta blished that there is any "liability shield" that would prevent the law firm from bein g liable for a judgment against Aguirre. Shames appears to reason that, accordingly, th is lawsuit is controlled by the cases in which a law firm is barred from recovering atto rney fees because it has represented itself. The premise of Shames's argum ent fails. Shames has sued Aguirre, not the law firm. Shames has identified no legal principle unde r which Aguirre's law firm, formed as a limited liability partnership, would be liable for a judgment against Aguirre personally. (See Corp. Code, § 16201 ["A pa rtnership is an entity distin ct from its partners."].)9 "The amount of an attorney fee award under the anti-SLAPP statute is computed by the trial court in accordance with the fam iliar 'lodestar' method. . . . Under that method, the court 'tabulates the attorney fe e touchstone, or lodestar, by multiplying the number of hours reasonably ex pended by the reasonable hour ly rate prevailing in the community for similar work.' " ( Cabral v. Martins (2009) 177 Cal.A pp.4th 471, 491, citation omitted.) " ' "The 'experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgm ent is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appe llate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong' ["] — meaning that it abused its discretion.' " ( Ibid .) "This rule applies in the context of fee awards under the anti-SLAPP st atutes just as it does in the context of similar statutory fee-sh ifting provisions." ( Ibid .) Shames's first argument is that the tria l court should not have awarded fees to Peffer because they were duplicative of the fees claimed by Aguirre . As Shames points out, the anti-SLAPP motions filed by Aguirre a nd Peffer were substantially identical and relied on common declarations. He contends th at, accordingly, all of the attorney fees claimed by Peffer in connection with the anti- SLAPP motion must be duplicative of the fees awarded Aguirre, and the trial court acc ordingly abused its discretion in awarding any fees to Peffer. We disagree. Shames made the same argument in oppos ition to Peffer's attorney fee motion, and the trial court largely accepted the argument, but drastically reduced Peffer's fee award. Specifically, the trial court obse rved that Peffer's and Aguirre 's anti-SLAPP motions were nearly identical, and it redu ced the fees that Peffer had claimed for his motion by10 $24,974, from $37,474 to $12,500. "Where, as here, the trial court severely curtails the number of compensable hours in a fee award, we presume the court concluded the fee request was padded." ( Christian Research , supra , 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1325.) Shames's argument that Severson performed overlapp ing work on the anti-SLAPP motions might "explain why the trial court may have been correct in initially reducing the amount of fees awarded," but it does "not explain wh y the award must be further reduced" when "the trial court already substan tially reduced the fee award." ( City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 787.) Moreover, a close look at the list of fe es claimed by Peffer and the list of fees claimed by Aguirre shows that in awarding only $12,500 in fees to Peffer, with a reduction of $24,974, the trial court eliminated all of the $15,414 that Peffer had claimed for the activities of drafting an d arguing his an ti-SLAPP motion. 6 The remaining award of $12,500 in fees to Peffer wa s sufficient to cover only some of the $15,275 in attorney
fees associated with Severson's preliminary review, research and fact gathering for Aguirre and Peffer's anti-SLAPP motions. As made clear by Severson's declaration, the attorney fees incurred in the preliminary work on th e anti-SLAPP motions were not included in the attorney fees claimed by Aguirre in his f ee motion. Therefore, in making a reduced award of $12,500 in fees to Shames, the trial court could not have awarded any

6 The trial court did not aw ard any fees associated with briefing a reply for Peffer's anti-SLAPP motion, as any such activity was encompassed in the fees for drafting and arguing the anti-SLAPP motion, wh ich the trial court deducted fr om the total fee award. Therefore, there is no merit to Shames's argum ent that the trial court abused its discretion to the extent it awarded fees for briefing a reply to an unoppose d anti-SLAPP motion.11 fees that were duplicative of any of the fees awarded to Aguirre for preparing the antiSLAPP motion. 7
Shames also contends that the trial cour t erred in awarding fees to Peffer because the fee request was not supported by sufficien t detail of the work performed by Severson and her associate in support of the anti-SLAPP motions. We di sagree. "In California, an attorney need no t submit contemporaneous time record s in order to recover attorney fees. . . . Testimony of an attorney as to th e number of hours worked on a particular case is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, ev en in the absence of detailed time records." ( Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553 , 559, citation omitted.) Severson's declaration, which attaches a list of the hours spent by her and her associate on specific categories of tasks in connection with the litigation of the special motion to strike, is sufficient evidence to supp ort the trial court's award of fees. Finally, although the argument is not clea rly set forth, Shames also appears to contend that because detailed billing records were not provided, Pe ffer may have claimed some fees that were unrelated to the litiga tion of the anti-SLAPP motion. There is no support in the record fo r this assertion, and we reject it. Severson's declaration and the

7 Shames contends that Peffer did not need to incur any fees to file an anti-SLAPP motion because he could merely have waited until Aguirre's motion was heard, and that Aguirre's motion would have been "determinativ e" as to Peffer as well, making the filing of Peffer's anti-SLAPP motion purely "gratu itous." The argument fails because (1) a defendant is statutorily required to file an anti-SLAPP motion within 60 days of being served with the complaint unle ss the court orders otherwise (§ 425.16, subd. (f)), and thus Peffer did not have time to wait for Aguirre's motion to be heard before filing his own motion; and (2) even if the decision on A guirre's motion would have decided the same legal issues, Peffer still needed to file his own anti-SLAPP motion to obtain a ruling striking the claims against him.12 attached list of fees plainly states that the fees requested in Peffe r's attorney fee motion were incurred in connecti on with litigating the anti-SL APP motion and the ensuing attorney fee motion. It is Shames's burden to point to evidence that any specific fees claimed by Peffer were unrelated to th e litigation of the anti-SLAPP motions ( Premier Medical Management System s, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564), and he has failed to meet that burden.
DISPOSITION The orders awarding attorn ey fees to Aguirre and Peffe r as prevailing parties in their special motions to strike are affirmed.

IRION, J. WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

M C DONALD, J.