UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 22, 2010
MOSTAFA NOORI, SELAIMAN NOORI, OMAR ATEBAR, PLAINTIFFS,
CITY OF DAVIS; CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DETECTIVE JEFF BEASLEY; CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DETECTIVE SCOTT SMITH; CITY OF DAVIS DETECTIVE MIKE MOORE, BRITTANY CORRALES; SANDEEP DHARIWAL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SANDEEP DHARIWAL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
Date: October 20, 2010
The Motion for Attorneys' Fees of Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal came on regularly for hearing on October 20, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6, the Honorable John A. Mendez, Judge, presiding. Mark Goldowitz, California Anti-SLAPP Project, appeared on behalf of Defendant and Moving Party Sandeep Dhariwal; Wazhma Mojaddidi appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Mostafa Noori, Selaiman Noori, and Omar Atebar. Kathryn K. Druliner attempted to make a "special appearance" on behalf of the Plaintiffs; however, the Court found that she had no standing to appear in this case, as Ms. Druliner admitted that she was not the attorney of record for any of the Plaintiffs. There were no other appearances.
The instant motion arises from Defendant's special motion to strike Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 425.16. On January 25, 2010, Plaintiffs Mostafa Noori, Selaiman Noori, and Omar Atebar filed a Complaint against the Defendants, City of Davis, City of Davis Police Department, certain detectives, Brittany Corrales, and Sandeep Dhariwal, alleging six causes of action, for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Docket Report, Item 1.) In response, on June 10, 2010, Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal filed a Special Motion to Strike pursuant to California's Anti-SLAPP statute, C.C.P. § 425.16. (Docket Report, Item 16.) The motion was set to be heard on August 18, 2010. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion. Instead, on August 4, 2010, while Defendant's Special Motion to Strike was pending, Plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of their Complaint. (Docket Report, Item 22.)
On August 18, 2010, Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16(c)(1) as the prevailing party.
The Court, having read and reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, specifically including, but not limited to, all objections, having heard the argument of counsel and the matter having been submitted, finds and orders as follows:
Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal has met the burden of proving that the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint concerning her conduct relate to protected conduct, specifically her right to petition and free speech under the United States and California Constitutions in connection with a public issue, as defined by C.C.P. § 425.16(b)(1).
Since Defendant met her burden of proving that Plaintiffs' Complaint arises from protected activity under C.C.P. § 425.16(b)(1), the burden shifted to the Plaintiffs to show by competent and admissible evidence that there was a probability that the Plaintiffs would prevail on their causes of action against Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal. The Court having reviewed the Declarations of Wazhma Mojaddidi, Esq. and the Declaration of Dain Weiner, Esq., finds that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing by competent and admissible evidence that there was a probability they would prevail on any of the causes of action against Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal. The Plaintiffs having failed to meet their burden, the Court finds that the Defendant's special motion to strike pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16 was well taken and the Complaint would have been stricken as to Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal. Therefore, Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal is entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16(c).
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted. Defendant Dhariwal is awarded $12,320 in attorneys' fees.
Hon. John A. Mendez United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby states under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California:
I am employed in Alameda County; I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within cause; and my business address is 2903 Sacramento Street, Berkeley, California, 94702-5209.
On this day, I addressed envelopes to:
Wazhma Aziza Mojaddidi Bruce Alan Kilday Law Office of Wazhma Mojaddidi John A. Whitesides 7112 Agora Way Angelo Kilday and Kilduff El Dorado, CA 95762 601 University Avenue (Attorney for Plaintiffs Mostafa Noori, Omar Suite 150 Atebar, Selaiman Noori) Sacramento, CA 95825
(Attorney for Defendants City of Davis, Steven Martin Campora City of Davis Police Department, Dreyer, Babich, Buccola, Wood LLP Jeff Beasley, Mike Moore, Scott Smith) 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 (Attorney for Defendant Brittany Corrales)
Manolo H. Olaso Law Offices of Johnny L. Griffin III 1010 F Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Attorney for Defendant Sandeep Dhariwal) and I placed in said envelopes a copy of the following document: (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SANDEEP DHARIWAL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES and I deposited said envelopes in the U.S. Mail, postage fully prepaid thereon.
Also on this day, I sent electronic copies of the above listed documents to email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com which I am informed and believe to the correct electronic mail addresses for Wazhma Aziza Mojaddidi, Steven Martin Campora, Manolo H. Olaso, Bruce Alan Kilday and John A. Whitesides, respectively.
Dated: October 28, 2010
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.