Lower Court Erred in Deciding SLAPP Motion Lacked Merit.
In Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. Zamora, Case No. B244791 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 31, 2014) (unpublished), cross-complainant ex-employee countersued cross-defendants ex-employer/employer’s CEO for libel, triggering a SLAPP motion by cross-defendants. Before the hearing, ex-employee filed a nonopposition and dismissed the libel count. However, cross-defendants appeared at the hearing and asked the lower court to rule their motion was meritorious in order to entertain a fee request under the mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting statute. The lower court determined cross-defendants did not prove the alleged prelitigation statements were protected, denying the fee request.
The appellate court reversed after determining the cross-defendants’ motion was meritorious such that the fee request should be entertained. In doing so, the reviewing court reminded us of the three ways fees can be claimed in SLAPP proceedings: (1) they can be sought in the moving papers; (2) the prevailing party can file a separate, subsequently noticed motion; or (2) they can be sought through a costs memorandum at the conclusion of the litigation. (Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp., 151 Cal.App.4th 454, 468 (2007).