Representing yourself -- even if you're an attorney -- is often a bad idea. You won't obtain neutral, impartial advice. You'll often convince yourself that motions are meritorious when, in fact, they're utterly frivolous; or, at best, meritless.
Admittedly, maybe attorney Dale Goldfarb (and his firm, Harrington, Fox, Dubrow & Canter) -- both of whom are defendants in the case -- are merely responding to the lawsuit with a scorched earth policy, and hence do not care whether the motions are likely to succeed. Still, I've rarely seen a more meritless anti-SLAPP motion than the one they filed here. It didn't persuade Judge Oki. It didn't persuade anyone on the Court of Appeal, either, and Justice Armstrong rightly affirms the trial court's denial of the motion.
The only relief that Mr. Goldfarb and Harrington, Fox end up with is a cost award against them. They're lucky, in my view, not to be sanctioned for a frivolous motion and/or appeal.
But, hey, if all of this was deliberate, and they totally knew that they were filing a motion and subsequent appeal that had virtually no shot in hell of being granted, and was merely designed to delay the action and frustrate the plaintiff: Great job. It worked. Congratulations on avoiding a fee award the other way!