The Record Did Not Support Trial Court’s Finding That Defendants Derived No Practical Benefit From Their Partially Successful SLAPP Motion.
California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1) entitles a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike to recover attorney’s fees and costs, but does not define the term “prevailing defendant” and is silent on entitlement where a SLAPPing defendant achieves only partial success – leaving to the trial court’s broad discretion determination as to whether a defendant prevailed and is entitled to fees. However, as a general rule, a SLAPPing defendant who achieves even partial success must generally be considered the prevailing party. An exception to this general rule exists where the results of a defendant’s SLAPPing success are so insignificant that they achieve no practical benefit. (See Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 340 (2006).)
Success without benefit is what the trial court determined defendants had achieved in Maleti v. Wickers, Case No. H048393 (6th Dist., August 15, 2022) (published) because they were not successful in achieving their ultimate goal of dismissing the entire complaint. This resulted in the trial court’s denial of defendants’ attorney’s fees motion. However, the Sixth District disagreed and reversed – finding defendants’ success in striking one of the two causes of action alleged against them to be no pyrrhic victory. Unlike the situation in Moran v. Endres, 135 Cal.App.4th 952 (2006) – the case relied on by plaintiff – defendants’ partial SLAPPing success did not accomplish nothing. Rather, it had the practical benefits of eliminating the possibility of facing liability under the stricken cause of action, and of narrowing the litigation, discovery, motion practice, and trial prep.
Comments