Significance/Practical Benefit Were The Factors, Not Complexity Of And Good Faith In Bringing Stricken Cross-Claim.
Plaintiff/cross-defendant, as a cross-defendant, was successful in striking one out of three cross-claims on a SLAPP motion, moving to recoup attorney’s fees/costs for the win. The trial court denied the motion after determining that the situation was complex and that the cross-complainant brought the claim in good faith.
The appellate panel in Dowlatshahi v. Escandari, Case No. B260208 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 16, 2015) (unpublished) reversed, determining that the trial judge used improper legal standards in deciding the request.
The problem here was that the lower court should have focused on whether the partial SLAPP success produced something of significance and some practical benefits. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Services, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 340 (2006).) However, complexity and good faith are irrelevant concerns such that a re-do was necessary on the fee request, with the appellate court making it clear that the deciding panel was providing no indication on whether cross-defendant was the “prevailing party” for SLAPP partial recovery—the lower court was the one to determine this.