Wilcox v. Target Corp. CA4/2 (2015) · DecisionDepot
Wilcox v. Target Corp. CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Nov 23, 2015 No. E060139Unpublished
Filed 11/23/15 Wilcox v. Target Corp. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
CHRIS WILCOX,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E060139
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS1103172)
TARGET CORPORATION et al., OPINION
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Janet M. Frangie,
Judge. Affirmed.
Martin Reiner1; Chris Wilcox, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Dorsey & Whitney, Jill A. Gutierrez and Martha C. Luemers for Defendants and
Respondents.
1 On October 10, 2014, Mr. Reiner became ineligible to practice law. (The State Bar of California <http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/144024> [as of November 5, 2015].)
1
Plaintiff and appellant Chris Wilcox (Wilcox) sued defendant Target Corporation
(Target) and its attorneys, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, and Mandana Massoumi, alleging
fraud in connection with the settlement of a previous lawsuit between Wilcox and Target
involving Target’s termination of Wilcox’s employment. Defendants’ special motion to
strike the complaint (anti-SLAPP2 motion) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure3 section
does not constitute a sufficient argument to preserve the issue for appeal. (See
Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 227, 237 [conclusory statement
in appellate brief that the defendant did not make requisite showing in anti-SLAPP
motion insufficient to preserve issue].) Having failed to adequately preserve the issue for
appeal, we affirm the award of attorney fees and costs in its entirety. (See Tuchscher
Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th
1219, 1248 [“The assertion [that there was irregularity in billing by the defendants’
attorneys] is unaccompanied by any citation to the record or any explanation of which
fees were unreasonable or duplicative. With this cursory argument, [the plaintiff] has
given us no basis to disturb the trial court’s discretionary ruling on the attorney fees
motion.”].) Furthermore, as defendants have prevailed in this appeal, they are also
6
entitled to an award of costs and attorney fees incurred in this proceeding. (Dove Audio,
Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 785.)
III. DISPOSITION
The orders appealed are affirmed. Defendants shall recover their costs and
attorney fees on appeal, the amount of which shall be determined by the trial court.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MCKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
MILLER J.
CODRINGTON J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior judgment under the law of the case doctrine, nor in awarding mandatory attorney fees to the prevailing defendants in an anti-SLAPP action.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying a motion to vacate a prior judgment under section 128, subdivision (a)(8)?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the prevailing defendants in an anti-SLAPP action?
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the trial court was precluded from inquiring in to the merits of this court’s decision, and instead was bond to regard it as law of the case.”
“The anti-SLAPP statute requires an award of attorney fees to a prevailing defendant”
“a court is not required to allocate attorney fees for work on issues or claims that are so intertwined that it is impossible to separate them.”