Fennell v. Abernathy CA1/4

Filed 4/17/15 Fennell v. Abernathy CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

DAVID FENNELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, A136468

v. (San Mateo County MARK ABERNATHY et al., Super. Ct. No. CIV492126) Defendants and Respondents.

DAVID FENNELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, A136469 v. (San Mateo County McCAIN VICTORY 2008 et al., Super. Ct. No. CIV492126) Defendants and Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION In 2010, David Fennell filed this action alleging various torts and statutory claims arising out of his experience as a volunteer for the California Republican Party. In September 2011, this court affirmed orders dismissing two groups of defendants from Fennell’s case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16),

1

California’s anti-SLAPP statute. (Fennell v. California Republican Party (Sept. 22, 2011, A129558) [nonpub. opn.] 2011 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 7191 (Fennell I).)1 In 2012, the trial court granted section 425.16 motions to dismiss two additional groups of defendants from this case: (1) a group of parties named as Doe defendants in the original complaint and subsequently identified by amendments to that complaint (the Doe respondents); and (2) several entity defendants affiliated with the McCain-Palin 2008 election campaign (the McCain-Palin respondents). Fennell filed two appeals which we consider together in this opinion. In case number A136468, Fennell appeals an order awarding the Doe respondents attorney fees incurred in connection with their special motion to strike Fennell’s complaint. In case number A136469, Fennell appeals an order granting the McCain-Palin respondents’ special motion to strike Fennell’s first amended complaint (FAC). We affirm both orders. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Background Fennell filed his original complaint in February 2010. Fennell I contains the following pertinent description of that pleading, which is not in either appellate record: “Appellant David Douglas Fennell formerly worked as a volunteer for the Republican Party in California, and he claims to have uncovered various problems within that organization, including incompetence, fraud, and corruption. Fennell contends his efforts to raise these problems internally were met with wrongful acts directed at him and his supporters. As a result, Fennell sued the California Republican Party and various