Filed 7/14/26 Judson v. Tait CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
MELANIE JUDSON, 2d Civ. No. B346920
(Super. Ct. No. 24CV05556)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
MARTIN MANT TAIT,
Defendant and Appellant.
Martin Mant Tait appeals the trial court’s award of attorney’s
fees to Melanie Judson after she prevailed on her civil harassment
restraining order petition against Tait. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October 2024, Judson filed her petition against her
neighbor, Tait. Judson alleged Tait, unhappy about an easement
Judson and her husband had on his property, verbally abused and
assaulted her almost immediately upon Tait moving into his
property in 2016. Judson alleged several instances of verbal abuse
and assault by Tait, including Tait accusing the Judsons of being
“ ‘on his land,’ ” cursing at an arborist hired to tend to the trees over
the easement, harassing Judson at a local supermarket, telling
Judson’s husband he was going to “ ‘kick [his] ass,’ ” calling Judson
a “fucking bitch” and telling her he wished she was dead, and
“brandishing” a shovel at Judson’s direction before throwing it to
the ground.
Judson alleged that in September 2024, Tait physically
assaulted Judson’s contractor, Todd Bebb, by brandishing a heavy
steel pipe in his direction and grabbing him by the throat.1 Bebb
took video of the incident and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s
office responded. Tait was cited for battery against Bebb.
Screenshots from Bebb’s video showed that Tait had previously
hidden the steel pipe in a hedge on the Judson property.
The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)
until the hearing on Judson’s request for a permanent protective
order. After a bench trial, the court granted Judson’s petition and
issued a five-year protective order in favor of Judson and her
husband.
As the prevailing party, Judson filed a motion to recover
$76,467 in attorney’s fees. Attached to the motion was counsel’s
declaration detailing services rendered and corresponding billing
records. For example, counsel declared that he interviewed several
witnesses, and prepared for examining other witnesses Tait
identified in his witness list. But at trial, Tait only called his wife.
Tait opposed the fee motion contending the requested fees were
excessive. After reviewing the fee motion and opposition and
hearing argument, the trial court reduced the requested fees by 30
percent, awarding Judson $53,527 in fees.
1 Bebb filed his own request for a restraining order, and his
petition was related to Judson’s for hearing purposes.
2
DISCUSSION
Tait contends the fee award should be reversed because it is
“so excessive” that it “shocks the conscience.” We are not
persuaded.
We review the order awarding Judson attorney’s fees for
abuse of discretion, reversing only if “the award shocks the
conscience or is not supported by the evidence.” (Jones v. Union
Bank of California (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 542, 549–550; Akins v.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1134 (Akins)
[“The only proper basis of reversal of the amount of an attorney fees
award is if the amount awarded is so large or small that it shocks
the conscience and suggests that passion and prejudice influenced
the determination”].)
The fees awarded here do not “shock the conscience.” The
trial court awarded less fees than Judson requested. The record
reflects that the court reviewed the fee motion, including billing
records, and Tait’s opposition before awarding fees. For example, at
the hearing on the fee motion, the court highlighted various entries
in Judson’s counsel’s billing records that it found “puzzling,” such as
billing entries stating counsel “consider[ed]” certain issues. The
court concluded Judson’s counsel’s billing was “excessive,” and
reduced the fee award by 30 percent, stating this was “a moderate
and . . . appropriate amount.” This reduction was a proper exercise
of the trial court’s discretion. (Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc.
(2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 908, 929 [trial court appropriately reduced
requested lodestar amount by 20 percent for, among other things,
“vague billing”].)
Tait nevertheless contends that Judson’s counsel’s billing
practices warrant a further reduction. But Tait raised the issue of
reducing the fees in the trial court, and the court responded by
reducing the award by 30 percent. The court reduced the fees after
3
considering Tait’s opposition and reviewing counsel’s billing
records. While Tait contends the reduction should have exceeded
30 percent, the reduced fee award here neither “shocks the
conscience” nor “suggests . . . passion and prejudice.” (Akins, supra,
79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134.)
Moreover, Tait’s contention that Judson should have incurred
the same amount of fees as him lacks legal support. “The trial court
is in the best position to determine the value of services rendered
during the trial over which it presided and, accordingly, we will not
disturb the court’s decision regarding the appropriate amount of
reasonable attorney fees absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
(Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1101;
see also Wash v. Banda-Wash (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 561, 568
[“The recovery of attorney fees under subdivision (s) of [Code of
Civil Procedure] section 527.6 is committed to the trial court’s
discretion”].) We will not disturb the trial court’s ruling.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Judson to recover her costs on
appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P. J. MCKAIG, J.
Judge of Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
4
Colleen K. Sterne, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Newmeyer & Dillion and James J. Ficenec for Defendant
and Appellant.
Allen & Kimbell, James M. Sweeney and Christopher E.
Hahn for Plaintiff and Respondent.