Cases: SLAPP

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             In Lang v. Petaluma Hills Farm, Case No. A156614 (5th Dist., Div. 5 November 20, 2020) (unpublished), several neighbors sued other neighbors – claiming defendant neighbors were conducting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             In BLT Communications, LLC v. LaMarche, Case No. B302527 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), former employer plaintiff sued two of its former employees asserting a number of allegations.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)

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,

Scroll to Top