Chambers

Chambers v. Miller

Good Law
140 Cal. App. 4th 821·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 910·2006 Daily Journal DAR 7823·44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 777·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5286
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 20, 2006G035400California1,735 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aronson, J.

Defendants Kim Miller and Julie Schamell appeal an order denying their special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) They contend the trial court erred by ruling it could not award attorney fees under the statute because defendants filed their special motion to strike after plaintiff Judith Chambers dismissed her claims against them. Chambers contends the dismissal deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to grant attorney fees under the statute.

Because we conclude the trial court properly denied fees under the anti-SLAPP statute, we do not reach the jurisdiction issue. Section 425.16, subdivision (c), provides that “a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” In enacting this section, the Legislature intended a prevailing defendant to recover attorney fees incurred only in dismissing the claims, not all fees expended in defending against the action. Because Chambers dismissed her claims against defendants before their motion to strike was filed, the motion was unnecessary and served no purpose. Thus, defendants were not the “prevailing defendants]…

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.