Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC
82 Cal.App.5th 613
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- 601 Main Street, LLC sued tenant David Frym for unpaid rent; Frym filed a cross-complaint alleging fraud and extortion against 601 Main, its principal Angela DeCarli, and attorney Regina Leoni.
- 601 Main, DeCarli, and Leoni each filed anti-SLAPP motions to strike; Leoni prepared/filed 601 Main’s and DeCarli’s motions and her own counsel filed Leoni’s motion.
- The court granted DeCarli’s motion and awarded her $6,310 in fees; while DeCarli’s motion was under submission, Frym dismissed the cross-complaint against Leoni and dismissed the fraud/extortion causes of action against 601 Main.
- The trial court deemed 601 Main’s and Leoni’s motions moot and, sua sponte, denied their fee requests on the ground that all three motions could have been combined and DeCarli’s awarded fees sufficed.
- 601 Main and Leoni appealed. The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred by failing to apply the lodestar method and reversed and remanded for a lodestar-based fee determination, allowing the court to consider DeCarli’s prior award for possible duplication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Frym) | Defendant's Argument (601 Main & Leoni) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were entitled to attorney fees after Frym voluntarily dismissed claims while anti-SLAPP motions were pending | Dismissals mooted motions; no further fees necessary and DeCarli’s award suffices | Prevailing defendants are entitled to mandatory fees; dismissal while motion pending does not eliminate fee entitlement | Trial court erred by denying fees without lodestar analysis; remanded to determine reasonable fees |
| Whether appellants waived challenge to fee-reasonableness by not objecting below | Frym: defendants invited error by not litigating lodestar below; appellants failed to preserve challenge | Defendants: issue concerns correct legal standard raised by the court; appellate review appropriate | Court exercised discretion to reach the legal standard issue despite limited below briefing |
| Proper method to calculate anti-SLAPP fee awards | Implicit: trial court may deny/reduce fees because one motion could have covered claims | Lodestar (reasonable hours × reasonable rate) is required; court may adjust for duplication or other factors | Lodestar method required; trial court must compute lodestar and may reduce for duplicative work, considering DeCarli’s prior award |
| Entitlement to fees on appeal (fees for litigating fee award and appeal) | No substantive opposition on appeal to fees | Prevailing defendants seek appellate fees and fees-on-fees under anti-SLAPP statute | Defendants entitled to reasonable appellate fees and fees-on-fees; remand to determine amount under lodestar |
Key Cases Cited
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) (anti-SLAPP fee awards must be calculated using the lodestar method)
- Wilkerson v. Sullivan, 99 Cal.App.4th 443 (2002) (court has discretion to decide prevailing party status after dismissal and may reduce fees for duplicative or unnecessary work)
- 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc., 6 Cal.App.5th 426 (2016) (trial court’s choice of legal standard for fee awards reviewed de novo; trial court best positioned to value services)
- Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4th 1315 (2008) (describes lodestar computation: hours reasonably expended × reasonable hourly rate)
- Area 51 Productions, Inc. v. City of Alameda, 20 Cal.App.5th 581 (2018) (anti-SLAPP prevailing defendants may recover appellate fees and fees for litigating the fee award)