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 In Mirjafarifiroozabadi v. Man, Case No. G066134 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 31, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff’s entire Complaint was dismissed after the defense won a SLAPP motion.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 […]

. . . . 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

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  In Thottam v. Edgar, Case No. B351320 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 24, 2026) (unpublished), a

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papers in this matter, we can say that Lichtenstein v. Stalley, Case No. B347325 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 19, 2026) (unpublished) reminds that a plaintiff defeating a SLAPP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 In Bagish v. Sarraf, Case No. B344027 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 27, 2026) (unpublished), defendant’s SLAPP motion was granted and denied in part, with the defense knocking out an injunctive relief request