Inquiry on Remand is Whether Defense Was Really Successful in a SLAPP Sense.
Covarrubias v. Union Adjustment Co., Inc., Case No. B250489 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 12, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting SLAPP case where the appellate court reversed the denial of a defense SLAPP motion on two claims but sustained the denial on two other claims.
Because there is a defense fee-shifting provision for SLAPP winners, the appellate court did remand with instructions for the lower court to determine, post remittitur, whether the defense should be allowed fee recovery. However, it did provide some clues about its thinking on the subject. Although winning two claims, the other two claims—which focused on debt collecting conduct—were still around and were the focus of the plaintiff’s case. Thus, according to the reviewing court, it could be argued that defendant was not in any realistic sense successful so as to be entitled to SLAPP fee recovery. (Moran v. Endres, 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 956 (2006).) Also, it guided the lower court by indicating that it was putting in “the trial court’s good hands” any costs apportionment issues.