California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Contreras v. Dowling, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 707, 4 Cal.App.5th 774 (Cal. App. 2016):
The lower court's award of sanctions under section 128.7 was based on its erroneous finding that Dowling's special motion to strike was frivolous. Thus, in addition to reversing its ruling on the motion to strike, we must also necessarily conclude the court erred in awarding [Contreras] fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. Rather, because the court should have granted [Dowling's] motion, [Dowling] is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs. (County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 20, 32, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 573 [where reviewing court concluded trial court should have granted anti-SLAPP motion, award of attorney fees and costs to respondent under 425.16, subd. (c)(1) and 128.5 must be reversed].) This includes an award of attorney fees incurred in connection with this appeal. (Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1404, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 [a defendant who prevails on a section 425.16 motion is entitled to an award of attorney's fees ( 425.16, subd. (c) ), including attorney's fees for the appeal].)
[208 Cal.Rptr.3d 728]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.