California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rosenaur v. Scherer, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 674, 88 Cal. App.4th 260 (Cal. App. 2001):
The only published case to squarely consider whether an attorney fees award under section 425.16, subdivision (c), is proper when a defendant has been relieved of his obligation to pay attorney fees has also ruled in favor of recovery. In Macias v. Hartwell (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 669, the appellate court upheld the trial court's striking of a defamation action brought by the losing candidate in a union election arising out of statements made in a political flyer. (Id. at pp. 674-675.) The losing candidate challenged the trial court's award of attorney fees under section 425.16, subdivision (c), on the ground that the defendant did not personally owe attorney fees because a local union organization paid his litigation costs. (Id. at p. 675.) The court in Macias rejected the argument: "Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, that a defendant who successfully brings an anti-SLAPP motion is barred from recovering fees if the fees were paid by a third party. Based on her construction of the law, respondent would not be entitled to attorney's fees if the defense costs were paid by his homeowner's insurance carrier, the union's insurance carrier, or a relative. No court has so held." (Id. at pp. 675-676.)
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.