A former friend of Will Smith is not entitled to a reduction in nearly $33,000 in attorneys’ fees a judge awarded Jada Pinkett Smith after her partial win in her anti-SLAPP motion against the plaintiff, the actress and talk show host’s attorney contended in court papers filed Monday.
Plaintiff Bilaal Salaam’s Van Nuys Superior Court lawsuit stems from his allegations that Pinkett-Smith was upset that Salaam refused to do some crisis management following the 94th Academy Awards when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock onstage. Salaam further alleges that he received threats after Pinkett Smith learned that he planned to publish a memoir talking about her personal business.
Salaam filed the lawsuit last Nov. 7 and it was pared through a judge’s partial granting of Pinkett Smith’s anti-SLAPP motion on April 13. The surviving claims concern Pinkett Smith’s alleged threats, coercion and intimidation of Salaam through intermediaries.
On May 18, Judge Eric Harmon granted Pinkett Smith, 54, about $32,835 in attorneys’ fees for winning part of her anti-SLAPP motion, a reduction from the nearly $42,200 in attorneys’ fees and costs the actress sought. On June 12, Salaam, representing himself, filed a motion for reconsideration of the amount of the attorneys’ fees, stating, among other things, that he is indigent and is “recognized as homeless for purposes of receiving homeless SNAP benefits.”
Salaam has “no present ability to satisfy any substantial portion of the $32,836.75 judgment,” according to his court papers, which further ask that the amount be reduced to a total “commensurate with plaintiff’s documented financial circumstances.”
But according to Pinkett Smith’s attorney’s court papers, Salaam filed the motion 10 days past the legal deadline and that the plaintiff’s alleged indigency is not a ground to reduce a mandatory anti-SLAPP fee award.
“Even if a plaintiff’s financial condition could bear on a mandatory fee award — and it cannot — plaintiff has offered no evidence of his,” according to Pinkett Smith’s lawyers’ pleadings, which further state that Salaam’s sworn declaration is unaccompanied by any records of benefits, medical records, bank statements, assets or expenses.
The state’s anti-SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
A hearing on Salaam’s motion for reconsideration is scheduled July 31.