Also, Fee Award Was Fairly Modest.
Plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion to the defense, which gave rise to the mandatory fee-shifting attorney’s fees statutory provision codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1). The trial court granted defendant $7,122.50 in fees and $806 in costs.
Plaintiff’s appeal in Darling v. Pentecost, Case No. E059958 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 22, 2015) (unpublished) was unsuccessful in obtaining any relief from this order.
The main argument on appeal was that the lower court erred by not considering her financial resources in rendering the award. The appellate court disagreed for several reasons. First, nothing in the mandatory SLAPP statute provided for a consideration of this factor, in contrast to discretionary fee awards in the civil rights area where this is a relevant consideration. “Plaintiff has not cited, and we have not discovered, any authority requiring California courts to consider the unsuccessful plaintiff’s financial status in making an award of attorney fees and costs to a prevailing defendant under the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Slip Opn., p. 10.) Second, plaintiff never provided any evidence of her financial status at any level of the proceedings, with representations not satisfying what she needed to do even if this was a consideration. Third, the absence of a reporter’s transcript made it impossible to determine if the financial consideration was weighed, although the competing consideration to compensate the winning SLAPP litigant was an even more compelling concern.