Dispute Was Over Ownership Of Purebred Australian Terriers.
Australian Terrier Puppy. Wikipedia. Author: Jay22897. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Dogs, palm trees, ocean views, and invading vegetation seem to draw the rankle of many a litigant, often leading to contentious suits where one side wins or no one prevails—all meaning that the fee award (or lack thereof) is either the great equalizer or a big disappointment depending on the fee outcome ruling.
Steele v. Wornall, Case No. B259546 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 6, 2015) (unpublished) involved a defamation/extortion suit arising over ownership of certain purebred Australian Terriers. Defendants filed a SLAPP motion against plaintiff, but it was denied because only a private dispute was involved—a determination affirmed by the appellate court in a prior opinion. Then, the plaintiff moved for recovery of fees based on the contention that the SLAPP motion was frivolous. The lower court agreed, awarding $101,184.32 in attorney’s fees against defendants as the unsuccessful SLAPP moving parties.
The 2/8 DCA affirmed in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Flier. Given that a private matter was truly involved and no privileged communications were at issue, the deferential standard of review—abuse of discretion—constrained the appellate court to find that the lower court was within its authority, with the opportunity for a different opinion not being sufficient. The defense argued that it spent much less time on the motion papers than plaintiff, but the appellate panel concluded that this comparison was not necessarily accurate given that plaintiff likely had more work to do in opposing a frivolous motion. The routine costs award for exhibit photocopying was proper, given that exhibits were used in plaintiff’s opposition papers.