SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendants Obtaining Dismissal of Civil Harassment Petition Entitled To Fee Recovery, But Trial Court Correctly Ruled Defendants Not Entitled To SLAPP Relief Such That Other Fee Work Could Not Be Recovered

Both Sides Appealed, But Trial Court’s Fee Recovery Orders Were Affirmed.

            In Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 30, 2018) (unpublished), defendants were awarded $40,000 in attorney’s fees based on defeating plaintiff’s civil harassment action but were denied additional fees based on the defense SLAPP motions because the lower court indicated the SLAPP motion would have been denied. The defense sought $84,150 in fees (inclusive of a 1.5 multiplier) under SLAPP, but the lower court determined only a portion of fees were recoverable by the defense based the civil harassment “win.” The lower court found that the reduction in claimed fees was appropriate based on excessive hourly rates and unsuccessful negotiation/SLAPP work.

            Both sides appealed, with no change in result.

            Plaintiff tried to argue that defendants were not the prevailing party because his civil harassment petition was a “catalyst” to certain responses by the defendants. However, the evidence showed that the lower court could conclude that defendants voluntarily did certain actions with no causal link to plaintiff’s lawsuit precipitating the responsive activities. Defendants were the prevailing parties, and the trial court’s fee calculations were not an abuse of discretion.

            Defendants wanted more fees in their cross-appeal based on the theory they should have had their SLAPP motion granted. Nope, only a private matter was involved (over a dissenting justice’s opinion) such that the fee results remained unchanged.