This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/05/2022 at 15:19:10 (UTC).

PAULE MCKENNA VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/31/2019 PAULE MCKENNA filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1329

  • Filing Date:

    07/31/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Appellants and Plaintiffs

MCKENNA PAULE

NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC.

Respondents and Defendants

BOSS FILM PRODUCTIONS INC.

VISIONA ROMANTICA INC.

SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC.

Not Classified By Court

GOLDMAN JOSIANE B.

NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ARLEDGE CHRISTOPHER W

Defendant Attorneys

PETRICH LOUIS

SCHILKEN ELIZABETH LEE

 

Court Documents

Proposed Statement on Appeal Submitted APP-104 CR-135/143 - APPELLANTS PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT

9/8/2021: Proposed Statement on Appeal Submitted APP-104 CR-135/143 - APPELLANTS PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT

Order - ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT

11/18/2021: Order - ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT]

11/18/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT]

Unknown - ORDER CONCERNING STATEMENT ON APPEAL APP-105 CR-136/144 NOA: 02/10/21- U B310814

11/18/2021: Unknown - ORDER CONCERNING STATEMENT ON APPEAL APP-105 CR-136/144 NOA: 02/10/21- U B310814

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

12/21/2021: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

12/21/2021: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

12/21/2021: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

Order - ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT

8/23/2021: Order - ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT]

8/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [ORDER ON APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT]

Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL B310814, NA2/10/21

8/10/2021: Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL B310814, NA2/10/21

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

8/10/2021: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 AMENDED

7/20/2021: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 AMENDED

Proposed Statement on Appeal Submitted APP-104 CR-135/143 - APPELLANTS PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT "U"

7/20/2021: Proposed Statement on Appeal Submitted APP-104 CR-135/143 - APPELLANTS PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT "U"

Appeal Document - RESPONSE RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT "U"

7/30/2021: Appeal Document - RESPONSE RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S PROPOSED SETTLED STATEMENT "U"

Appeal Document - APPEAL DOCUMENT B304256 C/W B310814; NA2/10/21; DCA ORDER RE: AMENDED DESIGNATION;

7/13/2021: Appeal Document - APPEAL DOCUMENT B304256 C/W B310814; NA2/10/21; DCA ORDER RE: AMENDED DESIGNATION;

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

6/17/2021: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 FOR "U" APPEAL

2/19/2021: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 FOR "U" APPEAL

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 RESPONDENT'S DESIGNATION ON "U" APPEAL

3/1/2021: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 RESPONDENT'S DESIGNATION ON "U" APPEAL

108 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/10/2022
  • DocketAppeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2022
  • DocketAppeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified (NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814 1 VOLUME); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • DocketAppeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid (RES2PONDENT PAID $164.01)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • DocketAppeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid (RES2PONDENT PAID $164.01)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (NOA: 02/10/21-U B310814); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketOrder Concerning Statement on Appeal APP-105 CR-136/144 (NOA: 02/10/21- U B310814); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Order on Appellant's Proposed Settled Statement]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketOrder (on Appellant's Proposed Settled Statement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketAppellant?s Proposed Settled Statement; Filed by Paule Mckenna (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Order on Appellant's Proposed Settled Statement]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
116 More Docket Entries
  • 08/30/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Visiona Romantica, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Boss Film Productions, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Paule Mckenna (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Paule Mckenna (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******1329    Hearing Date: December 10, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: McKenna v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al.

Case No.: *******1329

Complaint Filed: 7-31-19

Hearing Date: 12-10-20

Discovery C/O: None

Calendar No.: 3

Discover Motion C/O: None

POS: OK

Trial Date: None

SUBJECT: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER CCP ;425.16 AND CC ;3344.1

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Boss Film Productions and Visiona Romantica, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Paule McKenna

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Boss Film Productions and Visiona Romantica, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED.

Defendants filed the motion for fees on 4-3-20. Defendants served the motion on Plaintiff in pro per, according to the POS attached to the motion. Notice of entry of judgment was filed and served on 2-5-20. The motion for fees was therefore timely filed and served within 60 days of service of notice of entry of judgment. See CRC Rules 3.1702(b)(1), 8.104 and 8.108.

I. Defendants entitled to fees and costs incurred for the SLAPP Motion under CCP ;425.16(c)

A prevailing party on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs only for the anti-SLAPP motion itself, not for the entire action. See Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1381, 1383. This holding has been slightly expanded, to the extent that it has been interpreted to mean that a prevailing party is entitled to fees “incurred in connection with” the anti-SLAPP motion. See Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 21.

“Section 425.16, subdivision (c), is intended to compensate a defendant for the expense of responding to a SLAPP suit. To this end, the provision is broadly construed so as to effectuate the legislative purpose of reimbursing the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extracting herself from a baseless lawsuit.” Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at 22.

Pursuant to CCP ;425.16(c), Defendants prevailed on their SLAPP motion and are entitled to mandatory fees and costs. Defendants’ recoverable fees under CCP ;425.16(c) incurred in connection with the SLAPP motion, including this motion for fees.

Plaintiff does not dispute Defendants’ entitled to fees under SLAPP. Plaintiff only argues that Defendants are not entitled to recover all litigation costs under SLAPP, only those incurred on the SLAPP motion. As discussed below, Defendants are entitled to all fees and costs incurred defending against the litigation based on CC ;3344.1.

II. Defendants entitled to fees and costs incurred in this litigation under CC ;3344.1

Pursuant to CC ;3344.1(a), “[t]he prevailing party or parties in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs.” Plaintiff sued Defendants per CC ;3344.1(a)(3) and Defendants prevailed on their SLAPP motion to that cause of action. As such, Defendants are entitled to all fees and costs incurred to litigate this action.

Plaintiff does not argue that the fees and costs should be apportioned between the 1st c/a for violation of CC ;3344.1 and the remaining causes of action. Apportionment would also be impracticable, because Plaintiffs’ causes of action were based on the exact same nucleus of facts, the same theory of liability (use of Christopher Jones’s likeness without his permission) and are inextricably intertwined. See Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 124, 129–130 (“Attorney's fees need not be apportioned when incurred for representation on an issue common to both a cause of action in which fees are proper and one in which they are not allowed”); Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 157 (“When the liability issues are so interrelated that it would have been impossible to separate them into claims for which attorney fees are properly awarded and claims for which they are not, then allocation is not required”); Bell v. Vista Unified School District (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 687 (“Apportionment is not required when the issues in the fee and nonfee claims are so inextricably intertwined that it would be impractical or impossible to separate the attorney's time into compensable and noncompensable units”).

III. Defendants’ requested fees are reasonable

Defendants seek fees in the amount of $64,350.50. The fee award is based on (1) 15.7 hours @ $440/hr for senior counsel; (2) 144 hours of attorney time @ $325/hr; and (3) 8.1 hours @ $150/hr. The fee award also includes $9,427.50 for this fee motion based on (1) 2 hours @ $440/hr for senior counsel and (2) 26.3 hours @ $325/hr. The Court finds this amount reasonable based on the nature of the litigation, the legal complexity of SLAPP and the intellectual property claims alleged and the experience of counsel.

Plaintiff identifies 8 specific time entries she believes to be excessive. The Court finds the amount of time expended in connection with those tasks is reasonable.

IV. Plaintiff’s request for stay of judgment

Plaintiff asks that the Court “stay the judgment.” This request is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing a properly noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 995.240 to wave a provision for a bond, if appropriate.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VISIONA ROMANTICA INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC is a litigant