54 Cal.App.5th 275
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Richard and Susan Marshall sued author/reporter Daniel Webster for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements published on Facebook and in an electronic book.
- Webster filed an anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike on January 16, 2018.
- On May 11, 2018 the trial court signed, filed, and the clerk served a detailed, filed‑endorsed ruling granting Webster’s anti‑SLAPP motion and the docket reflected dismissal the same day.
- Webster later submitted a one‑page proposed order (signed June 29), served a notice of entry July 30, and moved for attorney fees; plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration August 9.
- On August 29 the court awarded Webster $79,000 in attorney fees (reduced from the requested amount).
- The Marshalls appealed October 25; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the anti‑SLAPP orders as untimely and affirmed the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 11, 2018 anti‑SLAPP ruling was a final, appealable judgment that triggered the 60‑day appeal deadline | The May 11 clerk memorandum/statement was not a formal final order; the June 29 signed order was the triggering document | The May 11 signed, filed, and clerk‑served ruling constituted the court’s final decision and started the 60‑day appeal clock | The May 11 ruling was a final judgment; plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was untimely and appeal from that order dismissed |
| Whether plaintiffs’ August 9 motion for reconsideration extended the time to appeal under rule 8.108(e)/§1008 | Reconsideration was timely and thus extended the appeal period; clerk’s later notice of entry governed time to seek reconsideration | The May 11 judgment divested the trial court of jurisdiction to reconsider, so any postjudgment motion was ineffectual and could not extend appeal time | Motion for reconsideration filed after entry of judgment was ineffectual and did not extend the appeal deadline |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees at out‑of‑county (San Francisco market) rates | The court should have applied Siskiyou County local rates | Webster showed he attempted to obtain local counsel and needed out‑of‑county contingency counsel; the court reduced the requested fees after review | Fee award affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in using out‑of‑county rates given demonstrated impracticability of local counsel and court’s lodestar adjustments |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) (granting anti‑SLAPP motion results in dismissal on the merits)
- Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 894 (2007) (statement/memorandum of decision generally not appealable unless it is signed, filed, and is final)
- Melbostad v. Fisher, 165 Cal.App.4th 987 (2008) (order granting anti‑SLAPP motion is a judgment under §581d when it has the effect of dismissal)
- Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc., 143 Cal.App.4th 1242 (2006) (order granting anti‑SLAPP motion is final when made and appealable)
- Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 132 Cal.App.4th 359 (2005) (trial court may use out‑of‑county rates when local counsel unavailable; plaintiff need only make good‑faith effort)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) (lodestar method and possible multiplier for contingency risk)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) (reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community where the court sits)
- APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.4th 176 (1999) (docket/register entry can satisfy §581d requirement for entry of judgment)