Patty v. Bonta
- Wise
- 5:25-cv-04392
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Patty v. Bonta, Judge Wise granted the Allan Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and found them prevailing parties.
Herbert T. Patty’s claims against Heather Allan and Allan & Martelle, LLP were subject to the granted anti-SLAPP motion. The Allan Defendants were found to be prevailing parties and may seek reasonable attorney’s fees by motion; the opinion does not award a specific fee amount.
What happened
In Herbert T. Patty v. Rob Bonta, et al., Herbert T. Patty sued Heather Allan and Allan & Martelle, LLP over their work representing his minor children in related state court proceedings. Patty alleged violations of constitutional rights and brought state-law claims. He later voluntarily dismissed the Allan Defendants from his amended complaint.
The Allan Defendants had already filed a motion under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which can strike claims based on protected speech or petitioning activity. The court kept authority to decide whether the Allan Defendants would have won that motion and therefore qualified as prevailing parties for possible attorney-fee recovery.
Judge Noél Wise granted the Allan Defendants’ special motion to strike and found them to be prevailing parties. The court concluded that their litigation-related conduct was protected and that Patty had not shown a reasonable probability of winning because state and federal litigation privileges covered the challenged conduct. The court did not award a specific fee amount; it set a deadline for any fee motion.
The detailed version
- Patty v. Bonta · No. 5:25-cv-04392
- Wise
- Nov. 28, 2025
Background
Herbert T. Patty brought this federal case after two proceedings in Santa Clara County Court: a criminal case and a family court case arising from his divorce-related interactions with his former spouse and children. Patty is an attorney licensed in California and represented himself in this case.
Patty sued various defendants, including Heather Allan, the attorney appointed as his minor children’s counsel in the state court proceedings. He later added Allan’s law firm, Allan & Martelle, LLP. His claims against Allan and the firm included alleged violations of his and his children’s rights, as well as state-law claims for abuse of process and aiding and abetting misconduct.
The Allan Defendants filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Anti-SLAPP proceedings provide a mechanism for striking claims arising from protected speech or petitioning activity. While the motion was pending, Patty filed a second amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed all claims against the Allan Defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court held that a plaintiff cannot avoid potential attorney-fee liability under the anti-SLAPP statute by voluntarily dismissing claims after an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed. The court therefore retained authority to decide whether the Allan Defendants would have prevailed on their motion and qualified as prevailing parties.
California’s anti-SLAPP procedure generally requires two steps. First, the defendant must make an initial showing that the claims arise from conduct protected by the right to petition or free speech. If that showing is made, the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on the claims.
The court found that the Allan Defendants satisfied the first step. Patty’s claims arose from Allan’s representation of, and recommendations concerning, his minor children during the underlying state court proceedings. The court characterized those actions as litigation-related activities squarely protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
The court also found that Patty had not shown a reasonable probability of prevailing. It stated that Patty did not address the Allan Defendants’ federal and state litigation privileges. The court concluded that the challenged statements and conduct occurred during, and for the purpose of, judicial proceedings and were therefore barred by litigation privileges under state and federal law.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the Allan Defendants’ special motion to strike and FOUND that Heather Allan and Allan & Martelle, LLP were prevailing parties for purposes of California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The court did not itself award a stated amount of attorney’s fees. It directed the Allan Defendants to file any fee motion by December 15, 2025, and allowed Patty to oppose that motion within 14 days after it was filed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.