Second District, Division 4 Gives a Nice Redux in this Area.
Even though there was no evidence that defense counsel was affiliated with the winning defendants in a SLAPP motion proceeding, the Second District, Division 4—in a short 3-0 unpublished opinion authored by Justice Manella—gave a nice review of the Trope limitation and exceptions thereto with respect to SLAPP fee awards in affirming a $3,380 fee award against losing plaintiff.
Gao v. Lu, Case No. B214535 (June 30, 2010) (unpublished) reminded us of these
fee limitations (and exceptions) in the SLAPP context:
- Where a member of a law firm sued in his/her individual capacity is represented by other attorneys in the firm, an award of fees is proper. (Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co., 87 Cal.App.4th 212, 221 (2001));
- An attorney who represents himself and other defendants and prevails in an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to fees (Ramona Unified School Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal.App.4th 510, 525 (2005));
- A law firm represented by an attorney in the firm is not entitled to attorney’s fees (Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (1995); Witte v. Kaufman, 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1211 (2006)); and
- An attorney representing herself in bringing an anti-SLAPP motion also is not entitled to attorney’s fees (Taheri Law Group v. Evans, 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 494 (2008)).