Residents of Santa Barbara generally have a reputation for being mellow, easy-going folks. But this opinion suggests that this stereotype isn't necessarily accurate, at least as applied the lawyers out there.
The Court of Appeal affirms the award of attorney's fees against a defendant when its counsel filed a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion. Not only is that the result, but the opinion concludes with a section entitled "A Plea For Calm," the text of which states: "At the trial level and here on appeal, the parties’ “scorched earth” postures exude acrimony: There have already been two appeals from anti-SLAPP rulings. We are hopeful that the law and motion wars will cease. The case should be settled or be tried."
That's a fairly damning indictment of the stereotype, no?
I was sufficiently intrigued by that statement to spend part of my weekend going back and reading the briefs in the underlying litigation. Admittedly, I only had access to the stuff on appeal, and wasn't able to read the trial court materials. But I gotta say, the briefs didn't seem that unusual at all, and certainly not so full of animosity and acrimony that I'd have been itching to tell the attorneys to tone it down a ton.
I'll admit that counsel for appellant sometimes puts things in a manner that's fairly . . . strong. But not in a manner that's unprecedented or beyond what I often read in trial or appellate briefs. The only thing that truly leaped out at me is appellant counsel's penchant for employing bold text, as I've gotta be honest that I've rarely (if ever) seen that much bolding in a non-pro se brief, and counsel might well be advised to stop hitting control-b so much. It's distracting. But acrimony? Nah. A little, sure. But not so much.
And appellee? Her brief seemed totally normal. Not acrimonious at all. Just exactly what you'd expect to see -- particularly when (as here) defending the award of attorney's fees for the filing of a frivolous motion below.
There may, of course, be more going on here than I can read in the appellate briefs. Maybe the trial court submissions were super vitriolic. Maybe the oral argument was especially testy. Maybe the Court of Appeal has had some history with this case (and its counsel) -- there was a prior appeal, after all, on a different issue -- and is tired of the same old routine, albeit at a slightly lower volume here.
But the mellow stereotype of the cool and calm resident of San Barbara applies here, if at all, only to the justices on the panel, who basically ask the lawyers to "turn down the volume" and keep things a bit more calm and quiet, at least on appeal.
Because it's Santa Barbara, after all.
