SLAPP: Defendant Was Entitled To Mandatory Attorney’s Fees Under SLAPP Statute Despite Voluntary Dismissal By Plaintiff

Trial Court Would Have Granted SLAPP Prior To Dismiss, Such That Amendment Nuanced Argument Did Not Change The Result.

            In Contreras v. Contreras, Case No. G056710 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2019) (unpublished), a plaintiff dismissed a slander title cause of action while a SLAPP motion was pending although the trial court would have granted the SLAPP motion on that claim.   Subsequently, the lower court granted the defense entitlement to fees and costs based on finding the dismissed claim would allow for same even though the claim was dismissed.

            The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Aronson, affirmed.  Despite the dismissal, the trial court retained jurisdiction to entertain on a SLAPP mandatory fee request, relying on Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang, 178 Cal.App.4^th 869, 879 (2009).  Appellant argued that this result was not right because a plaintiff amending a complaint to avoid a SLAPP motion was akin to dismissing a complaint, leading to a different result.  Naught!  Amending a complaint and dismissing a complaint are very different “animals,” such that the dismissal in this case put this matter into the Ellis “square peg” such that SLAPP fees and costs were in play for the defense.