Berry v. Pope Valley Union Elementary School District CA1/3
A171352M
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 27, 2025Background
- Charles J. Berry, a substitute teacher, sued Pope Valley Union Elementary School District and Napa County Office of Education (defendants) after being terminated, asserting multiple claims including malicious prosecution, undue influence, defamation, whistleblower retaliation, due process, equal protection, and abuse of process.
- Defendants filed anti-SLAPP motions to strike the claims; the trial court struck all claims against the District and all but one against NCOE, awarding attorney fees and costs to the defendants as partially prevailing parties.
- Berry appealed, resulting in a partial reversal as to procedural due process and equal protection claims and a remand for the trial court to reconsider the fee award.
- On remand, the trial court again awarded attorney fees to the District and NCOE for the claims they successfully struck, supported by attorney declarations detailing hours worked per claim.
- Berry challenged the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence supporting the fee requests, as well as the constitutionality of the anti-SLAPP statute's fee-shifting provision.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s fee award, rejected Berry's evidentiary and constitutional challenges, and granted defendants’ costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status after partial success | Defendants cannot be prevailing parties if some claims survive | Eliminating most claims made them partially prevailing parties | Defendants properly considered prevailing parties |
| Sufficiency of evidence for fee awards | Declarations are inadequate; billing records required | Declarations are sufficient for fee determination | Declarations are sufficient; billing records not required |
| Payment of attorney fees by defendants | Recovery impermissible absent proof defense actually paid attorney fees | Entitlement to accrued fees, not only those paid, under statute | No need to show actual payment to recover attorney fees |
| Constitutionality of fee-shifting provision | Anti-SLAPP fees violate rights to petition, due process, and constitute excessive fine | Statute protects participation and applies evenhandedly; fees are not punitive | Provision constitutional; no rights violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (establishes the standard for anti-SLAPP attorney fee awards based on reasonable hourly rates and time spent)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (clarifies anti-SLAPP applies when a plaintiff cannot state and substantiate a legally sufficient claim)
- Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 328 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (partial success on anti-SLAPP motion does not eliminate entitlement to attorney fees)
- Rosenaur v. Scherer, 88 Cal.App.4th 260 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (defendant entitled to anti-SLAPP attorney fees even if fees not actually paid)
- Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, 226 Cal.App.4th 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (attorney declarations about work performed may be sufficient evidence for fee awards)