First District, Division 2 So Rules in Lengthy Unpublished Decision.
Soderling v. Office of the California Attorney General, Case Nos. A124196/A124931 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 22, 2010) (unpublished) concerned an appeal by a doctor suing to overturn the trial court’s partial grant of an anti-SLAPP motion against the California Attorney General (AG) as well as overturn/reduce a $31,600 fee award to the AG for its partial SLAPP win.
The judgment, including the fees award, was affirmed in a scholarly opinion by Presiding Justice Kline on behalf of a 3-0 panel of the First District, Division 2. (For those who like SLAPP issues, the merits concerned the illegality exception to the free speech protection components of the SLAPP scheme.)
Now, we turn to our forte–the fees award.
AG and affiliated persons sought $85,557 in fees for work including that done by two Deputy Attorneys General also sued in the case, but was awarded $31,600 after determining the reasonable hours that were allowable for two attorneys in representing the other defendants (other than themselves).
Losing doctor’s primary challenge was that the Trope limitation–which precludes fee recovery by attorneys representing themselves–barred the fee award to AG/other nonattorney co-defendants because the two attorneys who were sued also represented the AG and two co-defendants that were also governmental medical investigators. Not so, said the appellate court. Public entities and agencies are eligible for fee awards under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Schroeder v. Irvine City Council, 97 Cal.App.4th 174, 194 (2002).) The lower court found that the two attorneys were representing AG and other medical investigators in the action, which was an attorney-client relationship divorced from actually representing themselves. (Cf. Ramona Unified School Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal.App.4th 510, 523-525 (2005).) The lower court properly awarded fees for the work performed by attorney co-defendants because they did in fact assist lead attorney in representing the AG and the medical investigators.
Notice how the particular circumstances drove the award and affirmance in this case.