Tax Characterization as Independent Contractor Was Not Dispositive Under Trope Prohibition.
Well, given that this is in our Mission Statement on this blog, we love the beginning of the next case: “This case illustrates that “[a]ll too often attorney fees become the tail that wags the dog in litigation.” (Deane Gardenhome Assn. v. Denktas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1399.)” Amen, but us co-contributors do litigate fee issues, so we have known that for some time and this reality inspired our blog several years ago.
Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC, Case No. C072820 (3d Dist. Oct. 3, 2014) (published) involved a trial court order awarding a defendant law firm $14,553.50 for successfully “SLAPPing” a plaintiff suit. The fees were awarded to an attorney claiming to be an “independent contractor” of the firm, a ground credited by the trial court in granting the award and rejecting the Trope prohibition argument made by the SLAPP losing plaintiff.
This one got reversed on appeal.
The problem was that the pleading captions and emails belied that the attorney was simply an independent contractor; rather, he was represented as a member of the winning SLAPP defendant law firm. The appellate court found that the “independent contractor” designation was not dispositive, especially given that tax characterizations are not binding in many, many litigation contexts.