Cases: SLAPP

SLAPP: $24,175 In Attorney’s Fees Award Was No Abuse Of Discretion For A Litigant Successfully Striking A Defamation Cross-Claim

Cases: SLAPP

No Meet And Confer Requirement Under SLAPP Statute, With Cross-Complainant Not Dismissing The Cross-Complaint Until After The SLAPP Motion Was Filed.             In Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc., Case No. B297176 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 11, 2021 unpublished; published on Jan. 14, 2021), a cross-complainant—although indicating an intent to […]

SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Founding Partner Of Software Company Did Get Hit With Some Fee/Costs Exposure From Shareholder Derivative Case And Malicious Prosecution Case Which Was SLAPPed

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Not Huge Amounts, But Some Challenges Were Untimely And Some Were Not Meritorious.             To end the year, we post on Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, Case Nos. D075308/D077096 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 31, 2020) (unpublished), which was a very contested dispute between software company Storix and founder Mr. Johnson, which dragged in various directors

SLAPP: 1/2 DCA, Although Acknowledging Slim Nature Of Defense SLAPP Motion, Sustained Not Awarding Fees To Plaintiff For A Claimed Frivolous SLAPP Motion

Cases: SLAPP

Matter Was Close, But Deference To Trial Judge Made The Difference.             In Guinnane Construction Co., Inc. v. Chess, Case No. A157781 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 22, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff won a SLAPP motion and moved for fees based on the contention that the defense motion was frivolous.  The trial judge denied plaintiff’s fee

SLAPP: 2/2 DCA Affirms $33,060 In Fees Awarded Against SLAPPing Defendants For Filing A Frivolous Motion To Strike For The Sole Purpose Of Delay

Cases: SLAPP

Defendants Could Not Strike A Cause Of Action For Breach Under The Anti-SLAPP Statute On The Ground Of Privileged Conduct Where Defendants Clearly Breached A Contract Not To Assert Particular Claims.             Rubin v. Kessler, Case No. B301967 (2d Dist., Div. 2 December 18, 2020) (unpublished) involves a bitter neighbor dispute – described by Los

SLAPP: $43,000 Out Of Requested $66,750 In Fees Was Awarded Because The Defense Brought A Frivolous SLAPP Motion

Cases: SLAPP

Hourly Rate For One Attorney And Hearing Appearance Work Was Reduced.             Defendants, in bringing SLAPP motions, do not get a “pass the jail/wild card.”  If a defense motion is frivolous, then the plaintiff can move to recover attorney’s fees for successfully opposing the SLAPP motion.  That is what occurred in Lora v. Parter Medical

Poof!, SLAPP: Trial Court’s Award Of $11,075 In Attorney Fees And Costs To Successfully SLAPPing Defendant Goes Poof! When 4/3 DCA Reverses SLAPP Grant

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Plaintiff’s Attempt To Initiate A Review Hearing With Private Swim Club On Coach’s Conduct Did Not Qualify As A Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(1) Official Proceeding Authorized By Law, And Swim Club’s Responding Accusation Against Plaintiff’s Son Did Not Qualify As An Issue Of Public Interest Pursuant To Anti-SLAPP Law.             In

Costs, SLAPP: 5/5 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Award Of Attorney’s Fees Against Unsuccessful SLAPPing Defendants And Granting Of Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike/Tax Defendants’ Request For Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: SLAPP

Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Not Based On Protected Activities And Determined Frivolous, And Order On Costs Was Not Appealable Under The One Final Judgment Rule.             In Lang v. Petaluma Hills Farm, Case No. A156614 (5th Dist., Div. 5 November 20, 2020) (unpublished), several neighbors sued other neighbors – claiming defendant neighbors were conducting

SLAPP: Fourth District, Division Two Vacates Prior Decision To Review Irreconcilability Of CCP § 128.5 Safe Harbor Provision With Timing Of Requesting Fees For Frivolous SLAPP Motion

Cases: SLAPP

Appellate Court Determines That 21 Days Pragmatically Impossible To Provide, So Preferred Course Is To Have A Plaintiff Request Fees In Opposition To SLAPP Motion To Give An Opportunity For The Defense To Respond/Be Heard.             In a May 21, 2020 post, we reviewed Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng, Case No. E073322 (4th

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)

Scroll to Top