Under California Supreme Court Precedent, a trial court may adjust the lodestar figure based on factors such as the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the quality of representation. Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1132; see also Edgerton v. State Personnel Board (2000) 83 Cal.Ap.4th 1350, 1363. In Edgerton, the court approved a 1.5x multiplier in light of the difficulty of issues, quality of representation, and the public nature of the lawsuit. In my view, the public interest has been vindicated in every anti-SLAPP victory because of the First Amendment rights at stake. First Amendment freedoms are so fundamental, the California Supreme Court has stated that defending them confers benefits on “the general public.” Press v. Lucky Stores (1983) 34 Cal.3d 311, 319. Therefore, if a prevailing party under the anti-SLAPP statute can demonstrate the the 2nd and 3rd Edgerton factors, a court should in theory make a generous enhancement to the lodestar under Ketchum and Edgerton.
Leave a Reply