Practical Benefit Test Unnecessary Where Defendant Wholly Prevailed On Anti-SLAPP Motion And Was Entitled To Mandatory Fees.
In Baral v. Schnitt, Case No. B298050 (2d Dist., Div. 1 January 28, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – who had won a jury verdict against business partner defendant of $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages – appealed the trial court’s award of $279,197.80 in attorney fees to defendant for having successfully SLAPPed back against certain portions of the complaint and subsequent Second Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)
Plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the fees because defendant was not the prevailing party as his SLAPP victories ultimately provided no practical benefit. The 2/1 DCA disagreed. Defendant wholly prevailed on his SLAPP motions. As a result, he was entitled to mandatory fees, was the prevailing party for the purposes of anti-SLAPP attorney fees, and the practical benefit test was rendered unnecessary. (Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131 (2001) [No. 8 in our list of Leading Cases]; Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales, 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 946 (2018).) Additionally, even if the practical benefit test were employed, defendant’s SLAPP victories achieved the practical benefit of “narrow[ing] the scope of the lawsuit, limiting discovery, reducing potential recoverable damages, and altering the settlement posture.” (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 340 (2006).)