2/7 DCA Decides To Follow Its Prior Opinion in Doe v. Luster.
In Clapkin v. Levin, Case No. B340606 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 16, 2026) (published), Acting Justice Segal on behalf of a 3-0 2/7 DCA panel dismissed an appeal brough by cross-complainants from a request for an award of SLAPP fees after cross-defendants’ SLAPP merits motion was denied (with the merits determination affirmed on appeal). The panel found that no statutory language made the order granting or denying SLAPP fees appealable in line with the Division’s prior reasoning in Doe v. Luster, 145 Cal.App.4th 139, 147 (2006). The panel disagreed with other decisions finding that it was more efficient to allow a non-appealable fee order determined in connection with review of a merits SLAPP opinion to proceed, because the statutes did not allow for appellate jurisdiction, rejecting the reasoning of the contrary Gumarang and Baharian-Mehr opinions.
BLOG OBSERVATION—At some point the California Supreme Court may have to decide this issue, possibly this is the opinion which leads to that consideration.