Two Second District Decisions, One Sixth District Decision Are Discussed.
Under our category “SLAPP,” we have reviewed decisions granting and denying fee requests to successful winners in anti-SLAPP motions. Here are three recent ones to add to the database: Dodson v. Irving Pomerantz & Associates, Case No. B195289 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 11, 2009) (unpublished), Silas v. Dion-Kindem, Case No. B208655 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 11, 2009) (unpublished), and Fullenwider v. Lifland, Case No. H033277 (6th Dist. Mar. 13, 2009) (unpublished):
slapp motion
- Dodson v. Irving Pomerantz & Associates: In a malicious prosecution suit, the appellate court affirmed an anti-SLAPP win in favor of attorney, but reversed a similar win in favor of the accountant. Attorney was awarded $10,815 in fees (out of the requested $12,532.50) and accountant was awarded $13,540 in fees (compared to the $15,956.50 sought), even though the accountant’s fee award POOFed away with a reversal of the anti-SLAPP win. Attorney’s fees were affirmed on appeal because appellant failed to show any abuse of discretion. (Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc., 143 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1248-1249 (2006).) Although some line items indicated work on other than anti-SLAPP matters, appellant failed to include the “other work” paperwork and the trial court’s reduction indicated that some reduction was made for this factor.
- Silas v. Dion-Kindem: Attorney was granted an anti-SLAPP motion on an abuse of process claim and then sought a recovery of fees. The trial court denied the request. Attorney appealed, but did not prevail. Attorney, through his professional law corporation, prosecuted the anti-SLAPP motion, such that the appellate court concluded he was not entitled to fees where he represents himself in the motion. The Court of Appeal found persuasive, by analogy, to the reasoning employed in Musaelian v. Adams, 45 Cal.4th 512, 520 (2009), which refused to allow recovery of CCP section 128.7 sanctions by self-represented attorneys. The Silas court also indicated that pre-Musaelian decisions have denied anti-SLAPP fees to self-represented attorneys. (See, e.g., Taheri Law Group v. Evans, 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 494 (2008); Witte v. Kaufman, 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1207-1211 (2006).)
- Fullenwider v. Lifland: Defendant won an anti-SLAPP motion in a privacy invasion lawsuit and was awarded $12,764.43 for winning the motion. On appeal, plaintiff did not convince the appellate court to reverse the merits determination, meaning that the fee award was left intact.