CoreCivic Inc v. Candide Group LLC
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-03792
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In CoreCivic v. Candide Group, Judge Alsup held Simon entitled to attorney’s fees and postponed calculating the amount until the appeal ends.
Morgan Simon, Candide Group LLC, and CoreCivic Inc.; the order primarily determined Simon’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and deferred the amount.
What happened
CoreCivic Inc. sued Morgan Simon and Candide Group LLC for defamation based on Simon’s articles criticizing private prison operators and naming CoreCivic in discussions about family separation at the border. The court had previously dismissed the claims after concluding the statements were true.
Simon and Candide sought attorney’s fees under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which can shift fees to defendants who prevail against lawsuits targeting protected speech. CoreCivic argued that the law could not apply in federal court because it conflicted with federal rules and that Simon’s statements were commercial promotion rather than protected public discussion.
The court rejected those arguments, held that California law created a substantive right to fees in this setting, and held Simon entitled to attorney’s fees. Judge Alsup postponed the final calculation until the appeal is resolved and did not set the amount in this order.
The detailed version
- CoreCivic Inc v. Candide Group LLC · No. 3:20-cv-03792
- William Alsup
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
CoreCivic Inc. brought defamation claims against Morgan Simon and Candide Group LLC. Simon, a senior contributor to Forbes, published online articles praising banks that ended relationships with private-prison operators. The articles discussed immigration, family separation at the border, activist groups, and investment in privately owned detention facilities.
The defendants filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court previously dismissed the defamation claims on the merits without leave to amend after an admission at the motion hearing established that CoreCivic had incarcerated parents after their children had been separated from them. The court concluded that the alleged defamation was true. Final judgment had been entered for Simon and Candide.
Fee Dispute
The defendants requested $165,572.10 for their special motion, $45,650.70 for the fee motion, and $310 in costs. CoreCivic argued that California’s anti-SLAPP fee provision could not apply in federal court because it conflicted with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 12 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co. CoreCivic also argued that Simon’s statements were excluded from anti-SLAPP protection because they promoted Candide and had a commercial purpose.
The court rejected the commercial-purpose argument. It held that Simon’s status as a senior contributor made her a person connected with a periodical publication under California law. The court also found that her articles were sufficiently connected to public issues, including immigration policy and activist responses to investment in privately owned detention facilities.
Analysis
The court explained that the Ninth Circuit had directed federal courts to apply the federal standards for motions challenging the legal or factual sufficiency of claims, while still leaving some uncertainty about the anti-SLAPP statute’s attorney’s-fee provision. The court treated the earlier anti-SLAPP motion as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motion when assessing the complaint.
The court distinguished the fee provision from the procedural standards for deciding a motion to strike. It held that California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) establishes a substantive state-law right to recover attorney’s fees when a defendant prevails in a California defamation action involving speech touching on a public issue. Because the provision was substantive rather than procedural, the court held that it did not conflict with Rule 11. The court therefore rejected CoreCivic’s argument that the fee provision had no place in federal court.
Ruling
The order granted attorney’s fees in principle and held that Simon was entitled to attorney’s fees. It held the final calculation in abeyance pending resolution of the current appeal and did not determine the amount of fees or costs in this order. The court also stated that the requested fees appeared excessive: defense counsel had spent 407.9 hours on the anti-SLAPP motion, while decisions cited by the court identified roughly 40 to 75 hours as a reasonable range. The order was signed by Judge William Alsup on April 6, 2021.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.