Unsuccessful Claim Work, Impact On Future Litigation, Issues Remaining To Be Litigated, And Whether Defendants Remain The Prevailing Parties Based On SLAPP Denial As To Two Alleged Defamatory Communications Remaining.
In White v. Gabriel, Case No. H052203 (6th Dist. Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) (White II), plaintiff sued several defendants for defamation, with two defendants entirely winning SLAPP motions directed at the communications specified in plaintiff’s complaint. The lower court, while a merits appeal was pending by plaintiff (White I), granted attorney’s fees totaling $573,667.76 to the two defendants (whose counsel voluntarily had written off significant hours) by further reducing the requested hourly rates and hours billed, finally reducing by another 2/7 for partial success on the SLAPP motion. The appellate court in White I reversed, determining that plaintiff had demonstrated minimal merit based on two alleged defamatory communications to the larger Stanford community and instructing the lower court to deny the motion as to those communications.
White II, although a different panel from the one deciding White I, also reversed the fee awards to the two defendants. On remand, the lower court was instructed to focus on (1) elimination of time on unsuccessful claims (to the extent the work was intertwined with work on successful claims, reduce proportionately for how the motions changed the lawsuit in a practical way); and (2) consideration of the degree to which the motions impacted future litigation expenses, whether the same factual allegations remain to be litigated, whether discovery and motion practice had been narrowed, and other relevant factors. (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1020 (2001); Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 344-345 (2006)).