In White v. Lieberman (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 210, the plaintiff sued Lieberman and others for malicious prosecution. Lieberman demurred to the first amended complaint and also filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court sustained Lieberman's demurrer without leave to amend, and decided Lieberman's anti-SLAPP motion was moot. (Id. at pp. 215-216, 220.) The Court of Appeal concluded the malicious prosecution action was barred by the statute of limitations, and also failed on the merits, thus the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. (Id. at pp. 217-219.) However, the appellate court disagreed with the trial court's ruling that the anti-SLAPP motion was moot: "A defendant who prevails in an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to attorney's fees. The trial court therefore erred in determining that Lieberman's motion was moot." (Id. at p. 220.) Under the specific circumstances of that case, the appellate court decided the trial court's order was tantamount to a denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and treated it as an appealable order. Concluding there was "no possibility" White could prevail on his malicious prosecution claim, and apparently convinced Lieberman deserved an award of attorney's fees under the anti-SLAPP statute, the court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine those fees. (Id. at p. 221.)