Plain Meaning of Statute and California Supreme Court Precedent So Dictated.
In a prior companion appeal, York v. Strong, Case No. G049512 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 10, 2015) (unpublished), one attorney appealed a SLAPP fee recovery of $21,840 assessed against him when another attorney “SLAPPed” his claim arising from competing claims to a settlement paid to a joint client. The appellate court had no problem concluding that a $400 hourly rate was justified and that all of the requested fees were properly awarded where the plaintiff attorney vigorously contested the SLAPP motion as against the prevailing defendant attorney (Ms. Strong).
Then, that brings us to the second opinion in York v. Strong, Case No. G049778 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 10, 2015), which was published by our local Santa Ana Court of Appeal on March 10. Ms. Strong, in the SLAPP proceeding, then incurred additional attorney’s fees in attempting to collect on the SLAPP fee award, moving for additional fees against losing attorney under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040—which authorizes an award for enforcement of judgments not only where provided for in a contract, but also in cases where such fees are “otherwise provided by law.” The trial court perceived that the post-enforcement fees were limited to contractual situations, denying Ms. Strong’s post-enforcement fee request.
The appellate court disagreed and reversed in the second opinion. The “otherwise provided by law” language in section 685.050 encompassed SLAPP fee recovery, not just contractually-based recovery. Beyond that, the California Supreme Court in Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141 n. 6 (2001) [one of our Leading Cases] decided that these very same post-enforcement fees were recoverable under section 685.040, so nothing more had to be said. Reversed, although the appellate court also indicated in the unpublished decision that the trial court could entertain a decision to award more appellate fees to Ms. Strong for winning the appeal affirming the initial SLAPP fee award.
Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam penned both decisions for 3-0 panels.