SLAPP: Real Parties In Interest In A Development Project Case Have A Stake To SLAPP, With Their Motion Not Frivolous And Requiring A Reversal Of Fees In Favor Of Petitioners

$28,795.70 In Fees Went Away Because SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous.

            In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission (Xingyun, LLC), Case No. B289179 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 5, 2019) (published), Real Parties were interested in a development project in Venice brought by certain petitioners against the Coastal Commission and City of Los Angeles.  Real Parties lost a SLAPP motion, based on the trial court’s perception they were not directly sued in the case and the claims in the petition did not arise from protected petitioning conduct.  The lower court then hit Real Parties with $28,795.70 in attorney’s fees for filing a frivolous SLAPP motion.

            Real Parties’ appeal was successful.  On the first impression “merits” issue, the 2/2 DCA concluded that Real Parties in a mandamus proceeding qualified as persons directly affected for purposes of an anti-SLAPP motion.  Once that was decided, there was enough proof to show that the petition claims arose from Real Parties’ petitioning activities, such that is was an abuse of discretion to grant frivolous fees “sanctions” against them.