Thomas H. Wagner v. Southern California Edison Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
O
2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 THOMAS H. WAGNER, Case No.: 2:16-cv-06259-ODW (PLA) Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
v.
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND COSTS [219] 15 COMPANY et al., Defendants. 17 I. INTRODUCTION Following the Court’s Order Granting, In Part, Denying, In Part, Defendant 20 Southern California Edison Company’s (“Edison”) Special Motion to Strike 21 (“Anti-SLAPP Order,” ECF No. 167) and a jury trial, Edison moved to recover its 22 attorneys’ fees and costs (Mot. for Att’ys’ Fees (“Mot.”), ECF No. 219). Specifically, 23 Edison argues that it is the prevailing party on its Special Motion to Strike Defamation 24 Claim (“Anti-SLAPP Motion”) (ECF No. 138), and is thus entitled to recover its 25 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 26 425.16. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Edison’s Motion.1
28 1 After considering the papers filed in connection with this Motion, the Court deemed this matter…