Douglas Dibiasi v. Starbucks Corp.

MEMORANDUM

Douglas DiBiasi (“DiBiasi”) appeals the amount pf the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses to Starbucks Corp. (“Starbucks”), Leslie Ruff (“Ruff’), and Heidi Parr (“Parr”) (collectively, “Appellees”). The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion a grant of attorney’s fees, and we review de novo any statutory interpretation. Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir, 631 F.3d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir.2011). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $156,797.62 in attorney’s fees and $18,319.79 in costs under Washington State’s anti-SLAPP statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.510 , and under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b). Appellees did not unnecessarily prolong the litigation because they repeatedly sought to dismiss the case on the theory that they were immune from suit under Wash. Rev.Code § 4.24.510. Further, we conclude that this defense was not a pure question of law. Under the circumstances of this case, in order to establish the defense it was necessary for Appellees to conduct discovery and then move for summary judgment to obtain a…