Costs/SLAPP: Plaintiffs Ultimately Losing Against Defendants Did Not Defeat Defense Argument That Defendants Were Routine Costs “Prevailing Parties” Even Though Plaintiffs Won Fees/Costs On Prior Anti-SLAPP Motion

 

No Real Case Law on the Precise Issue, But Result is Logical to Appellate Court.

     Personalized Workout of La Jolla, Inc. v. Ravet, Case No. D061647 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished) dealt with an interesting issue—whether plaintiffs winning fees/costs in a prior SLAPP proceeding were the parties with a “net monetary recovery” under routine costs statutes even though the same plaintiffs lost, ultimately, to the defendants after a trial on the merits.

     The trial court did award some relatively small routine costs to defendants, determining them to be the “prevailing parties.”

     The appellate court agreed, despite the lack of existing authority either way. The problem here was that plaintiffs were not successful on any of their claims after a trial on the merits against defendants. The SLAPP statute, in the 4/1 DCA’s view, was not a monetary recovery on a claim, but a recovery in a pre-trial proceeding designed to eliminate meritless claims and containing its own fees/costs recovery.