ELIYAHU ZILBERSTEIN, ET AL. VS ELLIOTT SMITH, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC12781    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., July 23, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Zilberstein, et al. v. Smith, et al. COMP. FILED: 10-12-18

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC12781 DISC. C/O: 09-26-20

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 10-11-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff’s Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys, LLC

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP § 425.16)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 10, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on July 16, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys Blvd, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for unfair business practices and injunctive relief against Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 29, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer.

On September 25, 2019, Defendants filed a special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. However, because anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in limited jurisdiction courts, on January 28, 2020, the Court denied that motion. (1/28/20 Minute Order.)

On January 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). On July 10, 2020, Defendants filed an Opposition, and on July 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

Plaintiffs bring the instant Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c), and argue they are entitled to attorney’s fees because Defendants’ Motion to Strike was denied. (Mot., p. 3:20-4:2.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c) provides:

“Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to section 128.5”

(Emphasis added.)

Under this section, “an award of attorney fees to a defendant prevailing on a special motion to strike is mandatory; a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to fees only upon proof that the defendant’s motion was frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340-41.) Here, the Court denied Defendants’ special motion to strike because it is not permitted in limited jurisdiction court, not because it was found to be frivolous or intending to cause unnecessary delay. (1/28/20 Minute Order.)

Thus, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12781    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: 25

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC’s Special Motion to Strike is DENIED.

OPPOSITION: Filed January 14, 2020

REPLY: Filed January 21, 2020

ANALYSIS:

I. Background & Discussion

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs Eliy Ahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys Blvd, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and for injunctive relief against Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 29, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer.

On September 25, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the “Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

However, in a limited jurisdiction court, “[m]otions to strike are allowed only on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) The Court of Appeal recently held: “Thus, construing section 92(d) to permit anti-SLAPP motions to be brought in limited civil cases would undermine the Legislature’s goal of efficient and cost-effective litigation in such cases. [¶] For all these reasons, we conclude that section 92(d) precludes a defendant from bringing a special motion to strike in a limited civil case.” (1550 Laurel Owner's Association, Inc. v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1158.)

Because the instant Motion is not permitted in this Court, it is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC’s Special Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.