Defendant Was Entitled To Recover Fees And Costs Incurred In Responding To Plaintiff’s Numerous Attempts To Overturn The Trial Court’s Grant Of The SLAPP Motion, Not Just The Fees/Costs She Incurred In Bringing The Anti-SLAPP Motion.
After successfully SLAPPing plaintiff’s complaint and being awarded $10,910 in attorney fees and $60 in costs under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c), defendant found herself fighting a series of at least nine unsuccessful attempts by plaintiff to reverse the trial court’s anti-SLAPP ruling. Following entry of judgment, defendant moved under § 425.16 for an additional $13,746 in fees and $400.52 in costs she had incurred in responding to plaintiff’s numerous filings. Additionally, defendant sought fees on fees (fees incurred in bringing the fee motion) – estimating $2,001 in fees (which was adjusted to $2,749.50 in her reply) and $98.52 in costs. The trial court found defendant was entitled to recover additional fees and costs she incurred that were necessary in litigating her fees award and were related to plaintiff’s numerous attempts to overturn the trial court’s SLAPP ruling – awarding defendant $15,660 in fees and $368.44 in costs after some reductions to fees/costs the trial court determined were not sufficiently related to defendant’s enforcement of the trial court’s SLAPP ruling.
The result was affirmed on appeal in Pierce v. Heiple, Case No. B300825 (2d Dist., Div. 1 January 22, 2021) (unpublished). Despite plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, the award of fees/costs under § 425.16(c) is not limited to fees/costs incurred in bringing the SLAPP motion. California Courts also allow fees/costs for responding to an appeal from the grant of a SLAPP motion and for bringing the fees/costs motion itself. Here, although plaintiff abandoned his appeal of the trial court’s order granting the SLAPP motion, he challenged the order by bringing other motions – such as moving for a new trial and twice seeking to set aside the order – in the trial court. Defendant was forced to respond to plaintiff’s filings to preserve the trial court’s SLAPP order. Plaintiff’s other arguments – that defendant’s attorney’s declaration in support of the additional fees motion contained vague, block-billed time entries and that various line items were improper – were to no avail. The 2/1 DCA found nothing vague about the entries in attorney’s declaration which provided a summary of hours spent responding to each of plaintiff’s filings followed by a detailed breakdown of each task performed. Plaintiff’s challenge to particular line items was forfeited on appeal as they were not raised in the trial court.
Comments