Second District, Division 8 Reduces Requested Fees/Costs From $7,737 to $2,580 to Winning Anti-SLAPP Victor.
Discretion, discretion, discretion. Awfully tough standard to win on appeal in any context, even when you win fees as a victorious plaintiff successfully prosecuting an anti-SLAPP motion. The breadth of discretion is illustrated in the next unpublished decision that we discuss.
In Allahverdi v. Monroe, Case No. 205349 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 13, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff won an anti-SLAPP motion—which means an award of fees was mandatory—and sought to recover $7,737 in fees and costs. The trial court awarded only $2,580. Plaintiff was miffed, appealed,
and could not surmount the abuse of discretion standard of review to show why the award should be overturned.
In this case, the trial court excluded several duplicative entries and adjusted for items lacking a “showing of necessity” or costs items not allowed by statute. “An adjustment for such discrepancies was within the court’s prerogative. If a fee request looks unreasonably inflated, the trial court has discretion to reduce the award or even deny it altogether,” citing Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (1982) [one of our Leading Cases]; Meister v. Regents of University of California, 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 447-448 (1998).
BLOG FAVORITE QUOTE FROM OPINION—“Our affirmance of the trial court’s exercise of discretion is not, as appellant asserts, a matter of ‘letting a trial court do whatever it feels like’ but an adherence to traditional notions of jurisprudence.”