Cases: SLAPP – Cal Attorneys Fees

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

September 6, 2026

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 In Patel v. Vaghashia, Case No. B346281 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 3, 2026) (unpublished), a defendant did win a SLAPP motion against plaintiff’s abuse of process causes of action.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

September 3, 2026

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 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 28, 2026) (unpublished) was the discussion on whether prevailing SLAPP defendants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

August 6, 2026

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 In Mirjafarifiroozabadi v. Man, Case No. G066134 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 31, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff’s entire Complaint was dismissed after the defense won a SLAPP motion.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: $40,000 SLAPP Fee Award Was Affirmed Because Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Impeded Review Of The Fee Amount

Cases: SLAPP

July 22, 2026

Besides, The Fee Request Was $52,215, So The Lower Court Did Exercise Discretion. In Obiora v. PWxyz, LLC, Case No. B349757 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 20, 2026) (unpublished), after a SLAPP grant, an attorney’s fees award of $40,000 was awarded to the prevailing party, although the total request was $52,215. The appellate court affirmed,

SLAPP: Appellate Court’s Conclusion That A Conspiracy To Defraud Count Had Minimal Merit Meant That No SLAPP Fees Could Be Assessed

Cases: SLAPP

July 5, 2026

. . . . That Despite Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Dismissal Of A Malicious Prosecution Complaint, Because The SLAPP Motion Would Have To Been Denied On The Merits. In the SLAPP context, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of an action does not end the inquiry on whether a SLAPP motion would have been granted such that fees could

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

June 27, 2026

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

June 23, 2026

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

SLAPP: Landlord, Successfully Defending Against A SLAPP Motion Against Tenants, Was Not Entitled To SLAPP Fees Awarded By The Lower Court

Cases: SLAPP

May 21, 2026

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

SLAPP: Partially Prevailing Defendant’s SLAPP Fee Request Was Properly Denied By The Lower Court

Cases: SLAPP

May 3, 2026

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

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

April 16, 2026

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