Cases: SLAPP

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness of Fees: $50,305 SLAPP Appellate Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Lower Court Reduced The Requested $95,519.88 In Appellate Fees To Almost Half. In Malik v. Carlson & Gevelinger, Case No. C101751 (3d Dist. Feb. 20, 2026) (unpublished), prevailing defendants earlier had been awarded SLAPP trial level fees of $14,960 (out of a requested $37,917.48) against plaintiffs, with the lower court reducing for requested hourly rates […]

SLAPP: Where SLAPP Defendant Groups Were Granted Reduced Fees, Plaintiff’s Appeal About The Lower Amounts Awarded Did Not Resonate On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

Lower Court Even Applied Discounted Hourly Rates Stipulated To By Defense Counsel–No Abuse of Discretion Demonstrated. In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion brought by two sets of defendants.  The merits determination was affirmed on appeal, but plaintiff also contested mandatory fee

SLAPP: Appellant’s Reversal Of Entire SLAPP Grant Meant That Attorney’s Fees Award Had To Be Revisited Against Previously Prevailing Defendants

Cases: SLAPP

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 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) (White II), plaintiff sued several defendants for defamation, with two defendants entirely

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, SLAPP:  SLAPP Fee Award, At Hourly Rates Higher Than Billed Rates, Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP

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 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished), involved a SLAPP grant to defendants, which triggered a mandatory fee award—if the fees requested were

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: $68,238.62 Fee Award To Defense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

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,

SLAPP: Appellate Court Reversal Of SLAPP Denial Of Attorney’s Motion Based On Representing Her Clients On A Settlement Payment Dispute Required A Remand To Determine Fees And Costs To Be Awarded To Attorney

Cases: SLAPP

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

Scroll to Top