Earlier, In Pro Per Litigant Hit With Trial SLAPP Fees Totaling $24,122.50.
City of Monrovia v. White, Case No. B282713 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 30, 2019) (unpublished) is quite a remarkable saga, showing how SLAPP fees against a losing litigant, especially against a losing litigant who also loses a subsequent appeal, can be quite steep in nature.
In this one, City sued defendant to enjoin unpermitted grading/construction on defendant’s property, prompting in pro per defendant to file a cross-complaint with 21 cross-claims. (In pro per litigant happens to be a licensed California attorney.) City successfully SLAPPed the cross-complaint and defendant lost her SLAPP motion, resulting in the imposition of $24,122.50 in attorney’s fees. Defendant/cross-complainant then appealed the SLAPP merits rulings, which were affirmed in large part in a prior appellate decision. City moved for its appellate fees as prevailing party, with the trial court awarding it another $102,699 for this work. The fee hearing was unusually long, with the in pro per litigant taxing the patience of the trial judge—where he recused himself voluntarily after making the fee ruling.
In pro per appealed the appellate fee award, losing yet again.
She argued that the trial judge’s recusal voided the appellate fee ruling, but the 2/2 DCA rejected that because the recusal occurred after the merits ruling. City initially had failed to file a supporting fee declaration with the “under penalty of perjury” language, but it corrected the error way before the fee hearing (which, like most hearings these days, are scheduled through a reservations system months down the line)—with the appellate court determining that the errata was not prejudicial because appellant had plenty of time to respond to the fee motion. City did prevail in the prior appeal (because 76% of the cross-claims were properly SLAPPed), and the prior appellate panel’s award of costs to City did not preclude it from also seeking attorney’s fees (put another way, awarding costs is not mutually exclusive of fee entitlement).
BLOG OBSERVATION—Co-contributor Mike recently appeared before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry Green (a USC graduate, with a cozy judicial attitude). Judge Green lamented the reservations system, indicating it was another indication that the courts are adopting the method of many other businesses of having you not talk to a real live human being. He likes people-to-people interactions, requiring counsel in discovery disputes to meet in person and work things out. Kinda refreshing, right?