American rule in California

2026(See Code Civ. Proc., § 1021; Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 , 278-279 [California follows the American rule, which requires that each party to the lawsuit pays their own attorney fees unless specifically provided for by statute or contract]; Royster Construction Co. v. Urban West Communities (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1169 [“The ‘black letter law’ . . . bars recovery of attorney fees in mechanic’s lien actions,” including actions to foreclose on the bond].) 14 We accordingly reverse the award of prevailing party attorney fees in favor of defendants.

2026(See Code Civ. Proc., § 1021; Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 , 278-279 [California follows the American rule, which requires that each party to the lawsuit pays their own attorney fees unless specifically provided for by statute or contract]; Royster Construction Co. v. Urban West Communities (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1169 [“The ‘black letter law’ . . . bars recovery of attorney fees in mechanic’s lien actions,” including actions to foreclose on the bond].) 14 We accordingly reverse the award of prevailing party attorney fees in favor of defendants.

2026Standard of Review “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.’ ” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 .) “ ‘ “On review of an award of attorney fees after trial, the normal standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2026Standard of Review “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.’ ” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 .) “ ‘ “On review of an award of attorney fees after trial, the normal standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2026(Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) However, section 1021 “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates attorney fees. [Citations.] Thus, ‘ “[p]arties may validly agree that the prevailing party will be awarded attorney fees incurred in any litigation between themselves, whether such litigation sounds in tort or in contract.” ’ ” (Mountain Air, at p. 751.) “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to

2026(Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) However, section 1021 “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates attorney fees. [Citations.] Thus, ‘ “[p]arties may validly agree that the prevailing party will be awarded attorney fees incurred in any litigation between themselves, whether such litigation sounds in tort or in contract.” ’ ” (Mountain Air, at p. 751.) “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to

2022As the California Supreme Court has explained, equitable indemnification “‘is not automatically available . . . for all tortfeasors who injure the same plaintiff.’” (Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1994) 8 Cal.4th 100, 109 .) “[I]irrespective of the equities between or among multiple tortfeasors, the right is subject to qualification, and countervailing considerations may limit recovery.” (Ibid.) “[C]ourts have long recognized that ‘the doctrine is not available where it would operate against public policy. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 109-110.) One such policy is th

2021The claim that Mai made here—that she was forced to procure the services of an attorney to defend herself in the Fike suit as a result of Robinson’s fraud—falls into one of these limited categories known as the “tort of another” theory.2 While such doctrines are sometimes described as exceptions to the general “American rule” that each party pays for their own attorney’s fees (see, e.g., Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 505 ; Flyer’s Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor 2 The tort of another doctrine allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees as damages when a plai

2026The Supreme Court was careful in the rest of its opinion to distinguish between jury “fees” and juror expenses in the form of “per diem” allowances and “mileage.” (See Williams, supra, 150 Cal. at pp. 717―720.) In our view, the failure to say “attorney fees” when referring to the payment of attorney fees would be a glaring and inexplicable omission by our high court in light of California’s adoption of the “ ‘American rule,’ ” at the time of its founding, “under which each party to a lawsuit ordinarily must pay his or her own attorney fees.” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 516 .) On

2026Attorney Fees in this Lawsuit Are Governed by the Contractual Fee Provision, Not Business and Professions Code section 809.9. “‘California follows the “American rule,” under which each party to a lawsuit ordinarily must pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citations.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 codifies the rule, providing that the measure and mode of attorney compensation are left to the agreement of the parties “[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute.’ (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 516.) ‘Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 provides, in s

2025DISCUSSION A. Applicable Legal Principles and Standard of Review “California generally follows what is commonly referred to as the ‘American Rule,’ which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees.” (Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1135, 1142 ; accord, Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) This rule is codified as section 1021; however, that statute also “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that 5 allocates attorney fees.

2025DISCUSSION A. Applicable Legal Principles and Standard of Review “California generally follows what is commonly referred to as the ‘American Rule,’ which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees.” (Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1135, 1142 ; accord, Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) This rule is codified as section 1021; however, that statute also “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that 5 allocates attorney fees.

2021It is pure equity, there are no statutes involved.” 4“Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 codified the private attorney general theory.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 151, 157, fn. 4 .) 6 “[T]he so-called ‘common fund’ exception to the American rule regarding the award of attorneys fees . . . , is grounded in ‘the historic power of equity to permit . . . a party preserving or recovering a fund for the benefit of others in addition to himself, to recover his costs, including his attorneys’ fees, from the fund of property itself . . . .’” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Ca

2021It is pure equity, there are no statutes involved.” 4“Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 codified the private attorney general theory.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 151, 157, fn. 4 .) 6 “[T]he so-called ‘common fund’ exception to the American rule regarding the award of attorneys fees . . . , is grounded in ‘the historic power of equity to permit . . . a party preserving or recovering a fund for the benefit of others in addition to himself, to recover his costs, including his attorneys’ fees, from the fund of property itself . . . .’” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Ca

2026Legal framework “An important exception to the American rule that litigants are to bear their own attorney fees is found in [S]ection 1021.5,” which “‘codifi[es] . . . the private attorney general doctrine of attorney fees developed in prior judicial decisions. [Citation.]’” (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 565 , fn. omitted.) Section 1021.5 provides, in relevant part: “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public int

2026Legal framework “An important exception to the American rule that litigants are to bear their own attorney fees is found in [S]ection 1021.5,” which “‘codifi[es] . . . the private attorney general doctrine of attorney fees developed in prior judicial decisions. [Citation.]’” (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 565 , fn. omitted.) Section 1021.5 provides, in relevant part: “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public int

2025“California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees. [Citations.] The Legislature codified the American rule in 1872 when it enacted 7 Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which states in pertinent part that ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties. . . .’ (See, e.g., Bruno v. Bell (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 776, 781 [American rule codif

2025“California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees. [Citations.] The Legislature codified the American rule in 1872 when it enacted 7 Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which states in pertinent part that ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties. . . .’ (See, e.g., Bruno v. Bell (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 776, 781 [American rule codif

2025Background Law “California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees.” (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278 (Trope).) The American rule is codified in 42 section 1021: “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; but parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to their costs, as hereinafter provided.” “[T]here is a sharp demarcat

2025Background Law “California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees.” (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278 (Trope).) The American rule is codified in 42 section 1021: “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; but parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to their costs, as hereinafter provided.” “[T]here is a sharp demarcat

2022“Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees.” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) This rule is codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which also “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates attorney fees.” (Mountain Air, at p. 751.) Thus, “ ‘ “[p]arties may validly agree that the prevailing party will be awarded attorney fees incurred in any litigation between themselves, whether such litigation sounds in tort or in contrac

2022“Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees.” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) This rule is codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which also “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates attorney fees.” (Mountain Air, at p. 751.) Thus, “ ‘ “[p]arties may validly agree that the prevailing party will be awarded attorney fees incurred in any litigation between themselves, whether such litigation sounds in tort or in contrac

2014The tort of another doctrine holds that “[a] person who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover compensation for the reasonably necessary loss of time, attorney’s fees, and other expenditures thereby suffered or incurred.” (Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 381 P.2d 645 ] (Prentice).) The tort of another doctrine is not really an exception to the American rule, but simply “an application of the usual measur

2014The tort of another doctrine holds that “[a] person who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover compensation for the reasonably necessary loss of time, attorney’s fees, and other expenditures thereby suffered or incurred.” (Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 381 P.2d 645 ] (Prentice).) The tort of another doctrine is not really an exception to the American rule, but simply “an application of the usual measur

2026Thus, parties “may validly agree that the prevailing party will be awarded attorney fees incurred in any litigation between themselves, whether such litigation sounds in tort or in contract.” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 , italics added (Mountain Air); see Miske v. Coxeter (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1259 (Miske); see Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1341 .) Section 1032, subdivision (b) provides: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover c

2026Thus, parties “may validly agree that the prevailing party will be awarded attorney fees incurred in any litigation between themselves, whether such litigation sounds in tort or in contract.” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 , italics added (Mountain Air); see Miske v. Coxeter (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1259 (Miske); see Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1341 .) Section 1032, subdivision (b) provides: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover c

2017C Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court has ‘“recognized an exception to be applied in cases where all three [section 1021.5] factors are *161 satisfied, but the party from whom fees are sought ‘is not the type of party on whom private attorney general fees were intended to be imposed.’ ” (Serrano, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1027 , quoting Joshua S., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 953 .) Under this exception, “a section 1021.5 fee award may not be imposed on a litigant who did nothing to adversely affect the public interest.” (Serrano, at p. 1020, citing Joshua S., at p. 958.) In explicating this ex

2017C Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court has ‘“recognized an exception to be applied in cases where all three [section 1021.5] factors are *161 satisfied, but the party from whom fees are sought ‘is not the type of party on whom private attorney general fees were intended to be imposed.’ ” (Serrano, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1027 , quoting Joshua S., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 953 .) Under this exception, “a section 1021.5 fee award may not be imposed on a litigant who did nothing to adversely affect the public interest.” (Serrano, at p. 1020, citing Joshua S., at p. 958.) In explicating this ex

2013(Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 806 ; see Brandt, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 817 .) However, the California Supreme Court has placed certain critical limitations on the recovery of Brandt fees, which is an exception to the "American rule" generally requiring each party to a litigation to pay its own attorney's fees. ( Cassim, supra, at p. 806 .) First, this exception is intended to be a limited one, and the insured may recover only those fees "attributable to the attorney's efforts to obtain the rejected payment due on the insurance contract." ( Brandt, supra, at p. 819 .) Second, an essential pr

2013(Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 806 ; see Brandt, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 817 .) However, the California Supreme Court has placed certain critical limitations on the recovery of Brandt fees, which is an exception to the "American rule" generally requiring each party to a litigation to pay its own attorney's fees. ( Cassim, supra, at p. 806 .) First, this exception is intended to be a limited one, and the insured may recover only those fees "attributable to the attorney's efforts to obtain the rejected payment due on the insurance contract." ( Brandt, supra, at p. 819 .) Second, an essential pr

2026Governing Principles and Standard of Review A. Statutory Framework – Attorney Fees “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .’ In other words, section 1021 permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates att

2026Governing Principles and Standard of Review A. Statutory Framework – Attorney Fees “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .’ In other words, section 1021 permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates att

2008(Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278-279 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 902 P.2d 259 ].) In support of the American rule is the argument “that since litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents’ counsel.” (Fleischmann Corp. v. Maier Brewing (1967) 386 U.S. 714, 718 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 475 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 ].) Although not explicit in either the statute or case law, it may be supposed

2008(Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278-279 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 , 902 P.2d 259 ].) In support of the American rule is the argument “that since litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents’ counsel.” (Fleischmann Corp. v. Maier Brewing (1967) 386 U.S. 714, 718 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 475 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 ].) Although not explicit in either the statute or case law, it may be supposed

2021An appeal, other than in a limited civil case, may be taken from any of the following: [¶] (1) From a judgment, except an interlocutory judgment, other than as provided in paragraphs (8), (9), and (11), or a judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222. [¶] (2) From an order made after a judgment made appealable by paragraph (1).” 17 II Attorney Fees A. Guiding Principles “ ‘California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his [or her] own attorney fees.’ (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.

2021An appeal, other than in a limited civil case, may be taken from any of the following: [¶] (1) From a judgment, except an interlocutory judgment, other than as provided in paragraphs (8), (9), and (11), or a judgment of contempt that is made final and conclusive by Section 1222. [¶] (2) From an order made after a judgment made appealable by paragraph (1).” 17 II Attorney Fees A. Guiding Principles “ ‘California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his [or her] own attorney fees.’ (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.

2025Guiding Principles “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees” except where “ ‘attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute’ ” or by “ ‘the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.’ ” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air); see Code Civ. Proc., § 1021 [“[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties”].) “ ‘[T]he legal bas

2025Guiding Principles “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees” except where “ ‘attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute’ ” or by “ ‘the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.’ ” (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air); see Code Civ. Proc., § 1021 [“[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties”].) “ ‘[T]he legal bas

2015General Legal Principles Regarding Attorney’s Fees under Section 1021.5 “[S]ection 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule . . . , that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citation.]” (Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945, 954 (Joshua S.).) “A court may award attorney fees under section 1021.5 only if the statute’s requirements are satisfied.” (Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 250 (Vasquez).) Section 1021.5 authorizes an award attorney’s fees to a “successful party aga

2015General Legal Principles Regarding Attorney’s Fees under Section 1021.5 “[S]ection 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule . . . , that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citation.]” (Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945, 954 (Joshua S.).) “A court may award attorney fees under section 1021.5 only if the statute’s requirements are satisfied.” (Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 250 (Vasquez).) Section 1021.5 authorizes an award attorney’s fees to a “successful party aga

2014We agree and reverse the order denying Serafin their attorney fees from Flynn. i. Serafin Was the Successful Party in This Case “Section 1021.5 provides, in pertinent part, that ‘[u]pon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party . . . in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if . . . a significant benefit . . . has been conferred on the general public . . . .’ Section 1021.5 is one of many ‘statutory exceptions’ that authorize a trial court to deviate from the generally applicable ‘American rule’ that each part

2014We agree and reverse the order denying Serafin their attorney fees from Flynn. i. Serafin Was the Successful Party in This Case “Section 1021.5 provides, in pertinent part, that ‘[u]pon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party . . . in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if . . . a significant benefit . . . has been conferred on the general public . . . .’ Section 1021.5 is one of many ‘statutory exceptions’ that authorize a trial court to deviate from the generally applicable ‘American rule’ that each part

2008He relies on Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society (1975) 421 U.S. 240, 247 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 ], in which the court stated that “it would be inappropriate for the Judiciary, without legislative guidance, to reallocate the burdens of litigation” to create an exception to the American rule.

2008He relies on Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society (1975) 421 U.S. 240, 247 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 141 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 ], in which the court stated that “it would be inappropriate for the Judiciary, without legislative guidance, to reallocate the burdens of litigation” to create an exception to the American rule.

2001Invective of the sort alleged by plaintiff while he and Scherer stood at opposing tables qualifies for constitutional protection. “[O]ur Constitution affords protection to statements made during the course of debate on political issues. [Citations.] In the words of Justice Hugo Black, ‘. . . it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.’ [Citation.]” (Beilenson v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 951 , quoting Bridges v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 252, 270-271 [ 62 S.Ct. 190, 197 , 86 L.Ed. 192, 207 ,

2001Invective of the sort alleged by plaintiff while he and Scherer stood at opposing tables qualifies for constitutional protection. “[O]ur Constitution affords protection to statements made during the course of debate on political issues. [Citations.] In the words of Justice Hugo Black, ‘. . . it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.’ [Citation.]” (Beilenson v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 951 , quoting Bridges v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 252, 270-271 [ 62 S.Ct. 190, 197 , 86 L.Ed. 192, 207 ,