The California Court of Appeal has affirmed an award of attorney fees to defendant Karen Rose in the case Sellars v. Rose (G066255). This decision comes after Rose successfully filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint made by plaintiffs John Sellars, Terri Sellars, and Christopher Sellars. The ruling is significant as it reinforces the application of the anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to protect individuals from lawsuits that seek to silence free speech.

The court's decision was filed on November 10, 2026, and it addresses the ongoing legal battle over statements made by Rose during a podcast in 2024. The court's ruling not only affects the parties involved but also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar anti-SLAPP motions.

Background

In this case, plaintiffs John Sellars, Terri Sellars, and Christopher Sellars accused Karen Rose of slander per se due to statements she made about them on a podcast. Following the complaint, Rose filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which is a legal mechanism designed to quickly dismiss lawsuits that infringe on free speech rights. The trial court granted Rose's motion, determining that the plaintiffs' claims were baseless and aimed at silencing Rose's speech.

After winning the anti-SLAPP motion, Rose sought to recover attorney fees amounting to $342,523. The plaintiffs contested this fee request, providing a spreadsheet with their objections to the billing entries. The trial court ultimately awarded Rose $161,886 in fees after reviewing the claims and determining that some billing entries were excessive or unrelated to the anti-SLAPP motion.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal reviewed the trial court's decision regarding the attorney fees awarded to Rose. The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee amount. They stated, "The fee award properly includes attorney fees incurred to litigate the special motion to strike (the merits fees) plus the fees incurred in connection with litigating the fee award itself (the fees on fees)." This highlights the court's acknowledgment of the legal framework surrounding fee awards in anti-SLAPP cases.

The court also noted that the hourly rates charged by Rose's attorneys, which were $595 and $895, were reasonable given their experience and the nature of the case. The court emphasized that it would not disturb the trial court's judgment unless it was clearly wrong. The appellate judges concluded that the trial court's assessment of the hours worked and the rates charged were within acceptable limits.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for both the plaintiffs and the broader legal landscape regarding anti-SLAPP motions. By affirming the fee award, the court reinforces the message that parties who file frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing speech may face significant financial consequences. This case serves as a reminder that the anti-SLAPP statute is a powerful tool for defendants in defamation and slander cases.

Additionally, the ruling may influence future cases involving similar claims, as it sets a precedent for how courts handle attorney fees in anti-SLAPP motions. The decision underscores the importance of evaluating the reasonableness of attorney fees and the necessity of the time spent on litigation.

What's Next

Following the ruling, the court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney fees Rose is entitled to recover on appeal. This indicates that while the initial fee award has been upheld, there may be additional costs incurred during the appeal process that will need to be addressed.