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 In G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District, Case No. D083991 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a SLAPP motion which eviscerated their Complaint.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 v. Loeffler, Case No. G063862 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2025) (unpublished), HOA SLAPPed a state collection statutory action brought by a homeowner, with the lower court awarding mandatory SLAPP fees of $6,300 to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 June 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a cross-defendant successfully SLAPPed a cross-complaint with six causes of action brought by the City and where the lower
Trial And Appellate Fees/Costs Remanded To The Trial Court, Given Cross-Defendants’ Partial Success. Wald v. Martin, Case Nos. B335960 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 16, 2025) (unpublished), illustrates how a partial reversal of a SLAPP grant generally leads to a reversal and remand of the subsequent fees/costs award to a prevailing defendant
Cross-Complainants Did Fess Up To The Problem, With The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Sanctions Hearing Further Showing No Abuse Of Discretion In The Denial Of The Sanctions Request. Although we take the cases as we find them for posting purposes, the next one was a dispute over an apparent snafu in
Self-Represented In Pro Per Plaintiff Could Not Surmount Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Amount Of Fees. We know by now that the SLAPP statute has a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of successful defendants. So unless timeliness is an issue, the amount of the fees to be awarded is usually the pivotal issue. In
Hearsay Evidence Could Be Credited By Analogy To A Family Law Case—Problematic, But OK Because Unpublished. In Berry v. Pope Valley Union Elementary School Dist., Case No, A171352 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 2, 2025) (unpublished), defendants won SLAPP motions and were awarded roughly $11,000 at the trial court level. Those rulings held up
Multiple Grounds Supported The Fee Denial. By now, followers of our blog know that plaintiffs can request fees for denial of a defense anti-SLAPP motion if the lower court believes that the defense motion was frivolous under CCP § 128.5 standards. In ANE Holdings, LLC v. Purity Preserved, LLC, Case No. D083065 (4th Dist.,
