Reason Was That The Grant Of Fees/Costs Was Summarily Made, Not Meeting Specificity Requirements Under CCP § 128.5. Although we have not looked at the underlying papers in this matter, we can say that Lichtenstein v. Stalley, Case No. B347325 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 19, 2026) (unpublished) reminds that a plaintiff defeating a SLAPP […]
Defense Motion Only Knocked Out An Injunctive Relief Remedy And One Other Claim Which Had Factual Issues Still Remaining On Non-Stricken Claims. In Bagish v. Sarraf, Case No. B344027 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 27, 2026) (unpublished), defendant’s SLAPP motion was granted and denied in part, with the defense knocking out an injunctive relief request
In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess
2/7 DCA Decides To Follow Its Prior Opinion in Doe v. Luster. In Clapkin v. Levin, Case No. B340606 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 16, 2026) (published), Acting Justice Segal on behalf of a 3-0 2/7 DCA panel dismissed an appeal brough by cross-complainants from a request for an award of SLAPP fees after cross-defendants’
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 Feb. 20, 2026) (unpublished), prevailing defendants earlier had been awarded SLAPP trial level fees of $14,960 (out of a requested $37,917.48) against plaintiffs, with the lower court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
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 In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion brought by two sets of defendants.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
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
