In Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Garamendi (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1375, a public interest group filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint against the Insurance Commissioner to invalidate legislation regulating insurance companies. Although the complaint did not sue Mercury Insurance Group (Mercury) or seek any relief against it, the complaint alleged that the challenged legislation was "insurer-sponsored" and that Mercury made significant monetary contributions to lawmakers in support of the legislation. (Id. at p. 1380.) Mercury was permitted to intervene in the action, and it then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court in Garamendi denied the motion, concluding among other things, that Mercury did not have standing to bring an anti-SLAPP motion because it was not named as a defendant. (Id. at p. 1384.) Further, the trial court awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff on the ground that Mercury's anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. (Id. at p. 1385.) On appeal from the attorney fee award, the Court of Appeal in Garamendi agreed that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. As it explained, "Section 425.16 provides a remedy with respect to 'a cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech . . . .' ( 425.16, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) Petitioners did not name Mercury as a defendant in the complaint, nor did they seek any relief against Mercury in the complaint. Therefore, Mercury did not satisfy the requirement of showing the action was brought against it." (Garamendi, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1392.) Further, the court "rejected Mercury's claim that its status as an intervener on the side of the defense placed it in the shoes of a defendant and as such gave it the same right to bring an anti-SLAPP motion as a defendant. The complaint in intervention did not transform Mercury into a defendant. . . . Mercury . . . could not intervene to make itself a self-styled 'defendant' for purposes of an anti-SLAPP motion when it was not a defendant to the complaint and the complaint did not purport to assert any claim against it." (Ibid.)