“Public Interest” Argument by Defense Was Not Frivolous.
In Albanese v. Menounos, Case No. B240866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 7, 2013) (published), plaintiff defeated a defense SLAPP motion on the basis no public interest was involved. Although the determination was affirmed on appeal, plaintiff requested fees from the appellate court because the defense argument was frivolous in nature.
Here is what the appellate court had to say on that: “Turning to the issue of attorney fees, Albanese contends she is entitled to such fees under section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). She argues that Menounos ‘exceeded the bounds of rational argument in attempting to (a) transform Albanese into a “public figure,” and (b) turn what was clearly a private dispute into a matter of “public interest.”’ Although we rejected Menounos’s contentions on the merits, we cannot say her contentions were frivolous or exceeded the bounds of rational argument. As demonstrated by the dissenting justice‟s opinion in D.C. [v. RR], 182 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1231-1261 (2010), what constitutes an issue of public interest is open to more than one rational interpretation. The request for attorney fees is denied.”