Lest one believe that filing an anti-SLAPP motion is an unadulterated good, here's an opinion that affirms both the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss as well as an award of $35,000 in sanctions against the City of Malibu for filing a "frivolous" anti-SLAPP motion.
I actually think that Justice Rubin gets the sanctions part wrong; although I agree that the anti-SLAPP motion was unmeritorious, I don't think it was frivolous, but instead was based upon an arguable -- albeit unfounded -- interpretation of the (very broad) definition of an "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition" in Section 425.16. But obviously the Court of Appeals disagreed.
Food for thought before filing an aggressive anti-SLAPP motion, eh?
