Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir, 631 F.3d 1299

Fabbrini was sued by the City of Dunsmuir for failing to sufficiently collateralize a municipal loan; the loan was not fully collateralized and the City requested declaratory relief and asserted a fraud claim that it later dismissed.
Fabbrini filed a federal action asserting a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim and a state-law defamation claim against the City and city officials.
The district court granted the City’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the defamation claim and denied the City’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim, then awarded fees to the City for the anti-SLAPP success and granted summary judgment on § 1983.
The district court awarded fees for time spent on the § 1983 motion that were “inextricably intertwined” with the anti-SLAPP motion, and later included fees for the fee-motion preparation itself; Fabbrini appealed.
The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a proper allocation of fees, and it held the § 1983 action was not frivolous, but that fees must be limited to work exclusively attributable to the anti-SLAPP motion unless the § 1983 claim is shown frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause supported the malicious-prosecution claim	Fabbrini argues lack of probable cause because the City’s action was not tenable	City contends proper probable cause existed given the 110% collateral requirement and under California law	Yes; probable cause supported the claim
Whether dropping the fraud claim allows a malicious-prosecution basis	Fabbrini notes the fraud claim was dropped but argues it could still support liability	City contends dropped claims cannot form a malicious-prosecution basis	Yes; dropped claim cannot form basis for malicious prosecution
Whether the fee award properly reflects work attributable to the anti-SLAPP motion	Fabbrini argues fees should not include intertwined § 1983 work	City claims fees for intertwined work are permissible when reasonable	Fees must be limited to work exclusively attributable to the anti-SLAPP motion unless the § 1983 claim is frivolous
Whether the district court erred in awarding the fee-motion preparation time	Fabbrini contends entries describing non-fee-motion tasks were improperly awarded	City contends some entries are recoverable as part of the fee motion	Yes; vacated portion remanded for proper apportionment of recoverable time

Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989) (probable cause in civil malicious prosecution standards)
Jenkins v. Pope, 217 Cal.App.3d 1292 (Cal. App. 1990) (dropped claims cannot sustain malicious-prosecution liability)
Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994) (plaintiff may drop untenable theories but liable if not amended)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (attorney’s fees framework; abuse of discretion standard with de novo review for legal analysis)
Patton v. Cnty. of Kings, 857 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1988) (fee-shifting standards for § 1983 prevailing defendants)
Quintana v. Jenne, 414 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2005) (apportioning fees when frivolous claims coexist with non-frivolous ones)
Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (guidance on intertwined and exclusive-fee allocation)
Fox v. Vice, 594 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2010) (intertwined-work fee issues; cert. granted by Supreme Court discussed on point)
Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) (considerations for state-law elements in § 1983 malicious-prosecution)