SLAPP: Lower Court Erroneously Denied Anti-SLAPP Fees To Two Out Of Three Defendants Based On The Notion That One Motion Rather Than Three Could Have Been Filed

Defendants Had Differing Interests, And Any Duplication Could Be Remedied By A Lodestar Downward Adjustment.

            In Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC, Case No. A163086 (1^st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 24, 2022) (published), a trial judge granted defendant attorney’s fee request after an anti-SLAPP motion win, but the judge denied fees to the two other defendants (a landlord and its majority shareholder) after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed claims during the pendency of the two defendants’ pending anti-SLAPP motions.  Notwithstanding the defendants having the same but also differing interests, the lower court denied fees to the other two defendants on the basis that they could have avoided the fees by filing a single motion.  The appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to apply lodestar principles to the two defendants’ fee requests, although the lower court could make a downward adjustment for duplicative work and could consider that attorney’s fees and costs already had been awarded to the defendant attorney.  The lower court also was to determine appellate prevailing party fees, although it could take into account that the two defendants challenged an appeals consolidation motion which was granted and that plaintiff filed a judicial notice request which was denied.  Here was the “bottom line” reasoning:  “ . . . we find no authority to support the trial court’s position that mandatory attorney fees can be denied where multiple prevailing parties represented by different counsel and with different interests, could have all brought one combined motion.”