Cases: SLAPP

Prevailing Party, SLAPP: Affirming Trial Court’s Granting Of Anti-SLAPP Motion With Modification To Separate Non-Protected Activities Within Cause Of Action Did Not Result In Reversal Of Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP

SLAPPing Defendants Were Still Prevailing Parties On The Protected Activity Allegations And, Therefore, Still Entitled To Attorney Fees And Costs.             In BLT Communications, LLC v. LaMarche, Case No. B302527 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), former employer plaintiff sued two of its former employees asserting a number of allegations. Plaintiff’s 4th […]

SLAPP: Attorney Fees Of $30,000 And $1,062 In Costs Awarded To Successful SLAPPing Defendant Subcontractor, Sued After Recording Multiple Duplicate Mechanic’s Liens, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

Plaintiff Based Its Challenge Of The Fees/Costs Only On The Underlying SLAPP Determination Which Was Upheld Because The Recording Of A Mechanic’s Lien Constitutes Protected Activity, Even If The Lien Is Invalid Or Improper.             RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc., Case No. D075615 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 23, 2020)

Celebrities, SLAPP: 4/3 DCA Affirms $137,340.25 Fees/Costs Awarded To SLAPPing Real Housewives Of Orange County Defendant In Defamation Lawsuit

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: SLAPP

Defendant’s Comments Were Protected Activity As They Were Made In A Public Forum Concerning A Public Interest.             In Bellino v. Beador, Case No. G057255, consolidated with Case No. G058129 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2020) (unpublished), Shannon Beador and Tamra Judge, two cast members of the reality show the “Real Housewives of

Costs, SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: SLAPP Fees Of $63,970 And Costs Of $1,680.13 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Vague Objections Not Entertained, But Failure To Award Positive Multiplier Was Sustained.             In Koerber v. Project Veritas, Case No. B291770 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2020) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed a mandatory SLAPP award of $63,970 in fees and $1,680.13 in costs.  The defense requested $109,545 in fees, inclusive of a

SLAPP: SLAPP Fees Denied To Plaintiff Where Trial and Appellate Courts Determined The Motion Was Not Frivolous

Cases: SLAPP

Meritless Does Not Necessarily Translate To Frivolous.             In Phelps v. McBratney, Case No. A156638 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 23, 2020) (unpublished), defendants lost a SLAPP motion (appealing the merits determination and losing).  However, the lower court refused to award plaintiff attorney’s fees because it found the motion was not frivolous.  That determination was

SLAPP: Justice Richman, On Behalf Of A First District, Division 2 Panel, Makes A Plea For The Legislature Or California Supreme Court To Revisit SLAPP Denial Appeal Abuses

Cases: SLAPP

The Particular Issue Was The Impact Of The SLAPP Stay During An Appeal, But Fee Issues Are Implicated In The Mix—But Of Course.             Although not directly involving a fees issue, Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, Case No. A157330 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 17, 2020) (published) is a very

Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP: The Previously Unpublished Fee Discussion In Marshall v. Webster Is Now Published

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

Higher Hourly Rate Awarded For Out-Of-County Attorney Affirmed Where Successful SLAPP Defendant Showed Good Faith Effort To Hire Local Counsel.             We discussed Marshall v. Webster, Case No. C088240 (3d Dist. August 27, 2020) in our August 27, 2020 post – a partially published case, with the fee discussion unpublished.             In Marshall,

Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP: Defense Fees Of $79,000 Were Warranted Where Out-Of-County Lawyer Efforts Were Needed To Oppose SLAPP Motion In Siskiyou County

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

Defense Showed Good Faith Efforts, Albeit Unsuccessful, To Hire Local Counsel, So Higher Hourly Rate Compensation Was In Order.             So this case was venued in Siskiyou County, which is a northern California county abutting on the Oregon border near Mount Shasta and having a population of 44,000 – 45,000 depending on how you count

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: In Pro Per Defendants’ SLAPP Motion Was Frivolous, Entitling Plaintiff To $9,900 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Denied, But Plaintiff Was Entitled To Appellate Fees For Prevailing On The SLAPP Denial.             Sometimes, there is more than one way to “skin a cat” as the proverbial saying goes.  That is what happened in Martin v. Smith, Case No. A157129 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 26, 2020) (unpublished).             There,

SLAPP: Partially Prevailing SLAPP Cross-Defendant’s Award Of $8,310 In Fees/Costs Affirmed

Cases: SLAPP

Cross-Defendant Sought $24,760, With Trial Judge Reducing For Only SLAPPing One Claim.             Cross-defendant in Tran v. Eat Club, Inc., Case No. H046773 (6th Dist. Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished) successfully SLAPPed a first cause of action, but not other claims.  Because SLAPP grant fees are mandatory for a defendant/cross-defendant, plaintiff sought $24,760 in fees/costs.  The

Scroll to Top