That is the Good News … the Bad News is that They Have to Pay Plaintiff Directly.
In our August 15, 2009 post, we looked at a companion case to the next one, where defendants lost an appeal of an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs when defendants were found to have brought a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion to a legal malpractice action filed by plaintiffs. Defendants also lost an anti-SLAPP motion in a companion case, again hit with $11,558.25 in attorney’s fees for having brought a frivolous motion. Defendants appealed again.
Same result, unfortunately for them, in Brooks-Wellington, Ltd. v. Grantham, Case No. E045673 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 17, 2009) (unpublished).
Defendants raised many of the same arguments as surveyed in our August 15, 2009 post, and were unsuccessful again. That was the bad news.
The good news is that they were victorious on one argument, although it was a “paper” win at best. The trial court ordered the fees paid to plaintiff’s attorney. On appeal, the appellate panel recognized that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) only allows an award to a prevailing party rather than ordering payment directly to that party’s attorney. The bad news is that the judgment was modified so that fees were directed to be paid to plaintiff, not its attorney. So, the end result was same bad news for defendants—they were out the same money, only to their opponents.
The only true good news is that the appellate court ordered each side to bear their own costs on appeal, better than the result gained by defendants in the prior companion case.