Plaintiff Based Its Challenge Of The Fees/Costs Only On The Underlying SLAPP Determination Which Was Upheld Because The Recording Of A Mechanic’s Lien Constitutes Protected Activity, Even If The Lien Is Invalid Or Improper.
RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc., Case No. D075615 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 23, 2020) (published) has a nice discussion of the applicability of statutory anti-SLAPP protections to improperly filed mechanic’s liens.
In this case, plaintiff sued for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief after a subcontractor recorded four duplicate mechanic’s liens for work performed on plaintiff’s luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Three of the liens were filed after plaintiff secured a bond to release the original lien. Because defendant released liens subsequent to plaintiff filing its lawsuit, the only cause of action remaining when defendant SLAPPed back was for slander of title. After the trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion – finding the recording of a mechanic’s lien to be protected activity – defendant successfully moved for attorney fees of $30,000 and costs of $1,062 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).
Plaintiff appealed the SLAPP determination and subsequent fees/costs award – with its only argument against the fees/costs award being that it should fall with the reversal of the trial court’s SLAPP ruling. However, based on the two-step process for determining anti-SLAPP motions – (1) whether the defendant met its burden to show a prima facie case that the activity underlying plaintiff’s action is protected, and, if so, (2) whether plaintiff met its burden to make a prima facie showing that its claims have minimal merit by establishing a probability of success – the 4/1 DCA affirmed the SLAPP ruling. On the first prong, the appellate panel found that defendant’s act of recording a mechanic’s lien constitutes protected activity, even if the lien is invalid or otherwise improper. As a result, when it moved to the second prong, the appellate panel determined that plaintiff was unable to meet its burden of showing that its slander of title claim had minimal merit. Because the 4/1 DCA found the anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted, it also affirmed the fees/costs award.