Planet Aid, Inc. v. Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting

Background

Planet Aid, Inc. and Lisbeth Thomsen sued Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting, Matt Smith, Amy Walters, and others, alleging that defendants published false and defamatory statements. Defendants filed a special motion to strike under section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, commonly called the anti-SLAPP statute. On March 23, 2021, the court granted that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 19, 2021, and the appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit when this fee dispute was decided.

Fee Motion and Parties’ Positions

Defendants asked for a total of $4,149,897.91 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion states that the amount appeared to be primarily attributable to discovery conducted in connection with the motion to strike. Under the California anti-SLAPP statute, a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiffs asked the court to defer deciding the amount of fees and costs, or to deny the motion without prejudice to renewal, until the Ninth Circuit resolved the appeal. Plaintiffs emphasized the substantial amount requested and their challenge to the application of California’s anti-SLAPP statute in federal court after the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co. They also pointed to federal appellate decisions and opinions by Ninth Circuit judges concerning the statute’s applicability.

Defendants argued that judicial economy favored deciding the fee motion immediately so that any appeal from a fee award could be combined with plaintiffs’ appeal from the dismissal. The court distinguished a prior case cited by defendants because the plaintiffs there had not made the same showing about the possibility of reversal and the amount of fees was much smaller.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that filing an appeal from a merits decision does not eliminate the district court’s power to award attorneys’ fees. The court nevertheless has discretion to decide the fee motion, defer it, or deny it without prejudice and allow a new filing period after the appeal.

Here, the court found that no party would be harmed by delaying the fee decision. It also found that plaintiffs had made a substantial showing that the judgment supporting defendants’ entitlement to fees could be reversed, depending on the Ninth Circuit’s decision about the anti-SLAPP statute. The court further considered the significant work needed to evaluate the large fee request.

Ruling

Judge Maxine M. Chesney ordered that ruling on defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs be deferred pending the Ninth Circuit’s determination of whether California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court. For administrative purposes, the motion was terminated without prejudice to renoticing as appropriate. The order did not decide the amount of fees or costs.