Procedural And Excessiveness Challenges Not Successful On Appeal. Litigants and practitioners are reminded that mandatory SLAPP fees, if granted to a true prevailing defendant, are hard to overturn as to amount where the record is clear that the defendants were true prevailing parties in entirety. That was the case in Homeport Insurance v. Weltin, et […]
Unsuccessful Claim Work, Impact On Future Litigation, Issues Remaining To Be Litigated, And Whether Defendants Remain The Prevailing Parties Based On SLAPP Denial As To Two Alleged Defamatory Communications Remaining. In White v. Gabriel, Case No. H052203 (6th Dist. Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) (White II), plaintiff sued several defendants for defamation, with two defendants entirely
Plaintiff’s Aggressive Litigation Tactics Justified The Amount Of The Fee Award. In OneTaste Incorporated v. NetFlix, Case No. B342250 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion targeted against his defamation suit (the merits of which were affirmed in an earlier appellate court opinion), with the lower court awarding the
Work On The Motion Was Excessive. After a case was voluntarily dismissed, a defendant brought a SLAPP fee motion and requested $38,317.50 in mandatory fees as the prevailing party (inclusive of a 1.5 positive multiplier) in Kim v. Woocher, Case No. B337918 (Dec. 18, 2025) (unpublished). The lower court only granted $5,000 in fees based
Lower Discounted Rates Are Not Preclusive On Lodestar Fee Award By Lower Court, With Laffey Matrix Not Having To Be Blindly Followed. O’Hill Capital v. Phillips, Case Nos. G063268 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished), involved a SLAPP grant to defendants, which triggered a mandatory fee award—if the fees requested were
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Sanctioned $13,000 For Bringing A Frivolous Appeal, Payable To The Appellate Court. In G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District, Case No. D083991 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a SLAPP motion which eviscerated their Complaint. The defense then was awarded $68,238.62 in mandatory SLAPP fees, the full request,
Attorneys Should Have Latitude To Represent Clients In Settlement Activities Without Fear Of Suits By Third Parties, Including the Beneficiary of the Settlement Funds. In Ramirez v. McCormack, Case No. B340986 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 8, 2025) (published), the appellate court vindicated that attorneys representing their clients in a settlement agreement generally do
The Reason Was That The Lower Court’s Order Failed To Make Written Findings About The Sanctionable Conduct. SLAPP litigants and their counsel can be liable for attorney’s fees if they lose a SLAPP motion which is deemed frivolous, based on CCP § 128.5. In Szeto v. Chen, Case No. G054497 (4th Dist., Div. 3
Main Reason Is That Homeowner Did Not Oppose the Fee Request, So Waiver Occurred. In Trabuco Highlands Community Assn. v. Loeffler, Case No. G063862 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2025) (unpublished), HOA SLAPPed a state collection statutory action brought by a homeowner, with the lower court awarding mandatory SLAPP fees of $6,300 to
Remand Was Required Because Appellate Court Reversed SLAPP Grant On Three Out Of Six Cross-Claims. City of San Jose v. Gradetech, Inc., Case No. H051462 (6th Dist. June 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a cross-defendant successfully SLAPPed a cross-complaint with six causes of action brought by the City and where the lower
