SLAPP: Defense SLAPP Fees Available For Work Of Associate Who Represented Partners Sued Individually By Plaintiff

Gilbert v. Master Washer Opinion Is Still Good Law On This Issue.

            In Opperwall v. Stone, Case No. A156200 (1^st Dist., Div. 5 June 24, 2020) (unpublished), a plaintiff sued an insurer’s counsel for various contractual and tort counts, specifically suing two partners individually of a small law firm.  They filed a SLAPP motion which was worked up by an associate representing them individually.  They won, and the trial judge awarded mandatory fees to the defendants to the tune of $13,100 (the entire request, 52.4 hours of work performed at $250/hour by the associate).

            Plaintiff’s appeal of the SLAPP grant and fee order did not produce any change in result.

            In affirming, the appellate court addressed plaintiff’s principal argument that no fee recovery could be had based on the Trope prohibition, such as where an associate employed at a firm represents the firm on a SLAPP motion.  However, there was a critical difference here:  the associate was representing the partners who had sued in individual capacities.  A case on point, Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co., 87 Cal.App.4^th 212, 222 (2001), held that SLAPP fees were recoverable and there was no violation of the self-representation prohibition of Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4^th 274, 292 (1995) [our Leading Case No. 12].  Plaintiff contended that Gilbert was “no longer good law,” but the panel found a number of cases had followed it.  (Lockton v. O’Rourke, 184 Cal.App.4^th 1051, 1074 (2010); Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp., 178 Cal.App.4^th 444, 96 (2009); Century Surety Co. v. Prince, 782 Fed. Appx 553, 558 (9^th Cir. 2019).). Plaintiff’s main authority in support of why fee recovery could not be had, Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP v. Cohen, 195 Cal.App.4^th 373, 386-387 (2011), was distinguishable because associate was representing the interests of her sued law firm instead.