Multiple Grounds Supported The Fee Denial.
By now, followers of our blog know that plaintiffs can request fees for denial of a defense anti-SLAPP motion if the lower court believes that the defense motion was frivolous under CCP § 128.5 standards. In ANE Holdings, LLC v. Purity Preserved, LLC, Case No. D083065 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2025) (unpublished), the lower court denied a SLAPP motion, but it denied plaintiffs’ motion for fees. The 4/1 DCA affirmed on these grounds: (1) the fact that the SLAPP motion was untimely did not mean it was frivolous because the lower court had discretion to consider an “untimely” motion; (2) the defense’s filing of a single, omnibus objection to plaintiffs’ opposition evidence did not meet the standard because no authority was cited for the proposition that the frivolousness of a SLAPP motion is controlled by the quality of a moving party’s objections; (3) the defense satisfied the first prong of the SLAPP analysis, but not the second, which showed that the motion was not completely frivolous; and (4) the lower court did observe that the SLAPP motion was not filed with an intent to unnecessarily delay the progress of the case (a discretionary perception credited by the appellate court).