How have appellate courts dealt with a request for judicial notice of a motion seeking attorney fees and costs against Respondent to Respondent's request for an anti-SLAPP motion?

Appellant has not directed us to any error in that decision or any abuse of discretion. Instead, in his rambling and largely unintelligible appellate opening brief, he primarily challenges the propriety of respondents' anti-SLAPP motion and attempts to relitigate issues decided against him. Pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case, he cannot do so. (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1132; Hutton v. Hafif (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 527, 550.)

It follows that we deny appellant's request for judicial notice. The items therein are not relevant to the issue in this casewhether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to respondents. (Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 812, fn. 8.)