Determination Of Prevailing Party Status In SLAPP Motion Lies Within The Broad Discretion Of The Trial Court, And Will Not Be Overturned Absent A Showing Of Abuse Of That Discretion.
In Harris v. Powerdrive Oil and Gas Company, Case No. G059623 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 4, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court partially granted cross-defendants’ special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute), then awarded cross-defendants $2,335 in attorney fees and costs.
Cross-complainants appealed – arguing that cross-defendants’ partial SLAPP victory did not warrant the award of attorney fees because cross-defendants were not the prevailing party as the results of their SLAPP motion was insignificant and did not result in a practical benefit. This, cross-defendants claimed, was an exception to the mandatory fee recovery in a SLAPP motion. To support their argument, cross-complainants’ cited Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, 33 Cal.App.5th 38, 45 (2019) [discussed in our March 18, 2019 post], and Mann v. Quality Old Time Serv., Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 328 (2006). However, as the 4/3 DCA explained – in a 3-0 opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Moore – when quoting from the two cases, cross-complainants failed to include the language about the trial court’s discretion. Determination as to prevailing party in a SLAPP motion lies within the “‘broad discretion’” of the trial court, and a decision based on the trial court’s broad discretion will not be overturned absent a showing by the challenging party that the trial court abused its discretion. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Serv., Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th at pp. 340-341.) Cross-complainants provided no evidence of abuse of discretion, and the panel affirmed.