Law Offices of Bruce Altschuld v. William Wilson , 632 F. App'x 321 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE No. 13-56316
ALTSCHULD; BRUCE EDWARD
ALTSCHULD, an individual, DC No. 2:12 cv-05457 JAK
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM G. WILSON, individually;
REALWEALTH CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Law Offices of Bruce Altschuld and Bruce Altschuld (together,
“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s award of $4,888.10 in attorneys’ fees and
costs to Defendants Realwealth Corporation (“Realwealth”) and William Wilson
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
(together, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs brought a malicious prosecution claim against
Defendants in district court based on a prior state-court action in which Realwealth
obtained a $400,000 judgment against Plaintiffs on its cross-claim for legal
malpractice. Defendants moved to strike the malicious prosecution claim under
California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. The district court took the motion under
submission, but before it rendered a decision, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendants subsequently filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ voluntary
dismissal, the district court, after concluding that it retained jurisdiction to consider
the motion and that Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim was a SLAPP, awarded
Defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs.
Plaintiffs timely appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
California’s anti-SLAPP statute permits courts at an early stage to dismiss
meritless cases “aimed at chilling expression through costly, time-consuming
litigation.” Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001);
see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(a)-(b). The statute also provides that a
2
prevailing defendant shall recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding
to the SLAPP suit. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c).
1. We have repeatedly held that the anti-SLAPP provisions governing
attorneys’ fees apply to state-law claims in federal court. Price v. Stossel, 620 F.3d
992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010); Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1109 (9th
Cir. 2003); United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190
F.3d 963, 972-73 (9th Cir. 1999). It is also well established that a federal court
retains ancillary jurisdiction over attorneys’ fees disputes collateral to the
underlying litigation. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F.3d 1037,
1041 (9th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). “[S]uch ancillary jurisdiction exists even
after the underlying litigation has concluded.” K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson,
762 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Cooter & Gell v.
Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990) (“[A] federal court may consider
collateral issues after an action is no longer pending [such as] . . . . award[ing]
costs after an action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”).
Here, the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is based on Defendants’ claim
that the complaint’s cause of action for malicious prosecution is a SLAPP; thus, the
issue of fees and costs is collateral to the action. See Ferrante, 364 F.3d at 1041(explaining that where “the fee issue was so closely related to the underlying
3
litigation[,]” the motion fell within the district court’s ancillary jurisdiction
(emphasis removed) (citations omitted)). Thus, despite Plaintiffs’ voluntary
dismissal of their action, the district court had ancillary jurisdiction to consider the
motion for anti-SLAPP fees and costs.
2. On the merits of the motion, the district court also properly concluded
that Defendants were entitled to anti-SLAPP fees and costs. Under the statute, “a
prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike” is entitled to recover attorneys’
fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1). A defendant that brings an
anti-SLAPP motion to strike may “prevail,” even if the court did not actually grant
the motion. Where the plaintiff dismisses the alleged SLAPP before the court rules
on a pending motion to strike, the mooting of the merits of the motion does not bar
a defendant from recovering attorneys’ fees. Pfeiffer Venice Props. v. Bernard,
123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 647, 652-53 (Ct. App. 2002); Moore v. Liu, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 807,
809-10 (Ct. App. 1999).
A court considering the award of fees on a pretermitted anti-SLAPP motion
to strike must engage in a two-part inquiry. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1110. First, the
defendant must make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff’s suit “arises from an
act in furtherance of the defendant’s rights of petition or free speech.” Mindys
Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Vess, 317
4
F.3d at 1110). “Second, once the defendant has made a prima facie showing, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the
challenged claims.” Id.
Plaintiffs do not contest that Defendants have met their burden under the
first step: that the malicious prosecution claim arises from Defendants’ free speech
in the prior state-court action. See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 74 P.3d
737, 741 (Cal. 2003) (“[E]very Court of Appeal that has addressed the question has
concluded that malicious prosecution causes of action fall within the purview of
the anti-SLAPP statute.”).
At the second step, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to show a probability of
prevailing on their malicious prosecution claim. To establish a malicious
prosecution claim, Plaintiffs must plead and prove that the Defendants’ cross-
complaint in the prior state-court action was: (1) commenced by or at the direction
of the Defendants and pursued to a legal termination in Plaintiffs’ favor; (2)
brought without probable cause; and (3) initiated with malice. See Crowley v.
Katleman, 881 P.2d 1083, 1087 (Cal. 1994).
The district court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove the first
element of favorable termination. We agree. “To be considered ‘favorable’ . . . a
termination in the underlying action must reflect the merits of the action and the
5
plaintiff’s innocence of the misconduct alleged in the lawsuit.” StaffPro, Inc. v.
Elite Show Servs., Inc., 39 Cal Rptr. 3d 682, 687-88 (Ct. App. 2006). In the prior
state-court action, Realwealth cross-claimed against Plaintiffs, alleging legal
malpractice. It is uncontested that Realwealth prevailed on this cross-claim and
obtained a $400,000 judgment against Plaintiffs. Such a judgment precludes a
finding that Plaintiffs were innocent of the alleged misconduct of legal malpractice
and that the state action was terminated in their favor. Nor can Plaintiffs, contrary
to their assertion, establish favorable termination based on their success on other,
discrete claims at-issue in the state-court action. The California Supreme Court
has squarely held that the favorable termination element requires “a favorable
termination of the entire action.” Crowley, 881 P.2d at 1093-94 (emphasis in
original). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Crowley’s holding, “which requires
judgment to have been reached in the plaintiff’s favor in the prior action as a
whole, cannot coexist with an exception for partial favorable termination.”
StaffPro, Inc., 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 692 (emphases in original) (internal citations
omitted). The cases cited by Plaintiffs concern the element of probable cause – a
separate and distinct element from favorable termination – and are therefore
inapposite.
6
Because Plaintiffs did not obtain a favorable termination in the prior state-
court action, they cannot meet their burden of showing a probability of prevailing
on the malicious prosecution claim under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP
inquiry.
• ! •
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
7