OneTaste v. Netflix CA2/3

Filed 1/8/26 OneTaste v. Netflix CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ONETASTE INCORPORATED, B342250

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCV27119) v.

NETFLIX, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Holly J. Fujie, Judge. Affirmed. Landes Law Corporation and Ezra D. Landes for Plaintiff and Appellant. Horvitz & Levy, Mark A. Kressel, Jeremy B. Rosen; Davis Wright Tremaine, Jonathan Segal, Rachel R. Goldberg, and Samantha Lachman for Defendant and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

In April 2024, the trial court granted defendant and respondent Netflix’s special motion to strike plaintiff and appellant OneTaste’s defamation complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 OneTaste now appeals from the order awarding statutory attorney fees and costs to Netflix as the prevailing defendant. OneTaste contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the award while the prior appeal was pending. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2023, OneTaste filed a defamation lawsuit alleging that Netflix released a documentary falsely implicating OneTaste in the sexual assault and abuse of a former employee. Netflix filed a special motion to strike the complaint, or an anti-SLAPP motion, under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1). In 2024, the trial court granted Netflix’s motion. We affirmed the trial court’s order. (OneTaste Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 174.) In June 2024, while OneTaste’s appeal was pending, Netflix moved for attorney fees and costs in the trial court. Netflix requested $251,870.70 in attorney fees and $3,780.51 in costs under section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Netflix argued that its request was reasonable because OneTaste “made the process needlessly more complex and difficult through its litigation conduct” by asserting “a muddled claim for defamation,” misrepresenting the applicable legal standards, making improper legal arguments based on inadmissible evidence, and submitting an untimely supplemental declaration and exhibits one business day before the hearing on the motion.