STEPHEN YAGMAN V. JOSEPH EDMONDSON, No. 17-55384 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN YAGMAN, No. Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-55384 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07210-DSF-SS v. MEMORANDUM* JOSEPH CURTIS EDMONDSON, Defendant, and MICHAEL J. COLELLO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Michael J. Colello appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Graham–Sult v. Clainos, 756 F.3d 724, 751 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Colello’s motion for attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c) because Colello failed to establish adequately the hours reasonably spent preparing the anti-SLAPP motion and a reasonable hourly rate for private attorneys in the community. See Ketchum v. Moses, 17 P.3d 735, 745 (Cal. 2001) (“A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 17-55384

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.