Cases: SLAPP

Allocation, SLAPP: Another Case Determines That Substantial Success Justifies SLAPP Fee Recovery, Where Intertwined Time Did Not Need To Be Allocated

Cases: Allocation, Cases: SLAPP

However, Reduced Fee Award Was Issued, And It Was Affirmed On Appeal. Some of our posts do intersect, so this one is somewhat of an adjunct to our post relating to our discussion of the Advanced Orthopedic unpublished opinion, an October 26, 2026 decision. In Seales-Perkins v. Los Rios Community College Dist., Case No. C104599

Allocation, SLAPP: Because Impact Of SLAPP Motion Is Paramount, No Need To Apportion Work On Unchallenged Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: SLAPP

However, $155,255.98 Reduced Fee Award, Out Of A Requested $210,227.48, Is Affirmed On Appeal. In Advanced Orthopedic Center, Inc. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc., Case No. B344584 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 26, 2026) (unpublished), defendants bringing a SLAPP motion—on remand from a prior appellate opinion–successfully had stricken allegations of an amended complaint alleging bribery

SLAPP: Prevailing Defendant On A SLAPP Motion Targeting Abuse Of Process Claims Contractually Bargained Away Its Right To SLAPP Fee Recovery Under Two Settlement Agreements

Cases: SLAPP

Defendant Was Paid Under The Settlement Agreements, With The Appellate Court Finding No Public Policy Bar Against Bargaining Away SLAPP Fee Recovery. In Patel v. Vaghashia, Case No. B346281 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 3, 2026) (unpublished), a defendant did win a SLAPP motion against plaintiff’s abuse of process causes of action.  However, because plaintiff had

Costs, Deadlines, SLAPP: Where SLAPP Motions And Dismissals On Them Did Not Resolve The Case Against All Defendants, The Prevailing SLAPP Defendants Did Not Face The 15-Day Memorandum Of Costs Deadline Generally Applying When The Case Is Fully Resolved

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: SLAPP

The Costs Memo Filing 10 Days Past The 15-Day Deadline Was No Problem, Given That The 15-Day Deadline Did Not Start To Accrue. What caught our eye in Amirtalesh v. Beverly Hills Properties, LLC, Case Nos. B339300 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 28, 2026) (unpublished) was the discussion on whether prevailing SLAPP defendants

SLAPP: $7,410 Fee And $956.79 Cost Awards Against Non-Prevailing Plaintiff, Whose Whole Complaint Was SLAPPed, Holds Up On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

Lower Court Substantially Cut Defense Counsel’s Claimed Hours And Cut The Hourly Rate Request. In Mirjafarifiroozabadi v. Man, Case No. G066134 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 31, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff’s entire Complaint was dismissed after the defense won a SLAPP motion.  Defense counsel then moved for attorney’s fees, claiming 34.10 hours of work at a

SLAPP: Prevailing Parties On ADA Defendant’s Cross-Complaint Against Plaintiff And Her Attorneys Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Of $13,000 For Winning A SLAPP Motion Against Cross-Complainant/ADA Defendant

Cases: SLAPP

Cross-Complainant’s Failure To Oppose the Fee Request Was Dispositive, With Trial Level Fee Award Affirmed And Remand To Consider Request For Appellate Fees. Anti-SLAPP motions which are granted give the winning defendants/cross-defendants the ability to seek reasonable, mandatory fees.  In Thottam v. Edgar, Case No. B351320 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 24, 2026) (unpublished), a

Appealability, SLAPP: 2/7 DCA Again Holds That Order Granting Prevailing Party’s Motion For SLAPP Fees Is Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

This Follows Its Earlier Conclusion In The Published Clapkin Case. On March 17, 2026, we posted on Clapkin v. Levin, 119 Cal.App.5th 222 (2026), a 2/7 DCA opinion where the appellate court determined that an order denying a SLAPP fee motion is not appealable.  The same Division followed that reasoning in Moussazadeh v. Integrative Surgical

Scroll to Top