Major

Major v. Silna

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 1485·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1942·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14622·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 875·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10691
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 2005B176846California6,976 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

After respondent Wade Major voluntarily dismissed his action for injunctive relief against appellant Ozzie Silna, the trial court denied Silna’s request for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 —the law curtailing the filing of strategic lawsuits against public participation, often called the “anti-SLAPP law.” We reverse and remand for a determination of the award.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties do not dispute the following facts: The City of Malibu has enacted its own campaign finance law, codified in chapter 2.20 of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), that regulates campaign contributions and other campaign activities. Pertinent here is section 2.20.030(B)(1) of the MMC, which provides: “No person shall make to any candidate for city council . . . a contribution or contributions that would cause the total amount contributed by such person to the candidate ... to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each single election for member of the city council.”

The MMC defines “contribution” as including “[a]n expenditure made at the behest of a candidate . . . unless full and adequate consideration is received for making the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.