33 Cal. App. 5th 38
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Richmond Compassionate Care Collective (RCCC) sued multiple medical‑marijuana collectives and principals under the Cartwright Act alleging a conspiracy to block RCCC from opening dispensaries in Richmond.
- Defendants filed coordinated anti‑SLAPP (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16) motions; the trial court granted the joint motion in part (striking allegations about mobilizing public opposition) and denied or left intact allegations about property purchases and price‑fixing.
- After further pleading and additional anti‑SLAPP motions, the court denied 7 Stars’ later anti‑SLAPP motion and granted RPG’s in part; 7 Stars appealed that denial (later affirmed on appeal).
- Defendants sought attorney fees under the anti‑SLAPP statute for their successful (or partially successful) motions; Judge Goode found defendants prevailed on anti‑SLAPP motions and awarded fees to several defendants, including 7 Stars.
- RCCC appealed only the award of anti‑SLAPP fees to 7 Stars, arguing the Cartwright Act’s unilateral fee‑shifting scheme (fees to prevailing plaintiffs only) precludes defendants from recovering fees under § 425.16.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the fee award, holding the anti‑SLAPP statute and the Cartwright Act are reconcilable and that a prevailing defendant on an anti‑SLAPP motion is entitled to mandatory fees under § 425.16(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prevailing defendant in a Cartwright Act suit may recover fees under the anti‑SLAPP statute | Carver forecloses defendant fees because Cartwright Act authorizes fees only for prevailing plaintiffs (one‑way fee shifting) | § 425.16(c) independently entitles a prevailing anti‑SLAPP defendant to fees; statutes are reconcilable | Court: Defendants may recover anti‑SLAPP fees; no conflict with Cartwright Act |
| Whether Carver or analogous authority prohibits application of anti‑SLAPP fees in antitrust cases | Carver establishes a public‑policy reason to bar defendant fee recovery in Cartwright cases | Carver is inapplicable to anti‑SLAPP context; does not overrule § 425.16 | Court: Carver not controlling; it was not a SLAPP case and does not prevent § 425.16 awards |
| Whether only fees allocable to the stricken protected‑activity portions are recoverable | Plaintiff argues entire Cartwright claim context prevents fees | Defendants argue partial success still yields fees for the successful portions; trial court exercises discretion to apportion | Court: Partial success can justify fees; only fees for granted portions are recoverable and trial court may allocate |
| Whether legislative purpose of Cartwright Act should override anti‑SLAPP fee policy | Plaintiff: Cartwright’s goal to encourage antitrust enforcement outweighs anti‑SLAPP policy | Defendants: Later‑enacted anti‑SLAPP policy to deter meritless suits and limit defense costs stands alongside Cartwright Act | Court: Both statutes can be applied; implied repeal disfavored; anti‑SLAPP fees consistent with protecting First Amendment activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (anti‑SLAPP prevailing defendant is entitled to mandatory attorney fees)
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (anti‑SLAPP statute intended to limit costs of SLAPP defense)
- Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 119 Cal.App.4th 498 (one‑way fee‑shifting under Cartwright Act interpreted to favor prevailing plaintiffs; court distinguishes Carver from anti‑SLAPP context)
- Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 328 (partial success on anti‑SLAPP motion can make defendant a prevailing party entitled to fees)
- Jackson v. Yarbray, 179 Cal.App.4th 75 (only fees related to granted portions of anti‑SLAPP motion are recoverable)
- Stone Street Capital, LLC v. California State Lottery Com., 165 Cal.App.4th 109 (statutory conflict resolved by reconciling statutes; implied repeal disfavored)
- Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn., 163 Cal.App.4th 550 (affirming fee awards to defendants in Cartwright Act litigation)