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 In Guinnane Construction Co., Inc. v. Chess, Case No. A157781 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 22, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff won a SLAPP motion and moved for fees based on the contention that the defense motion was frivolous.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 […]
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 Rubin v. Kessler, Case No. B301967 (2d Dist., Div. 2 December 18, 2020) (unpublished) involves a bitter neighbor dispute – described by Los
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
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
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 In Lang v. Petaluma Hills Farm, Case No. A156614 (5th Dist., Div. 5 November 20, 2020) (unpublished), several neighbors sued other neighbors – claiming defendant neighbors were conducting
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
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 In BLT Communications, LLC v. LaMarche, Case No. B302527 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), former employer plaintiff sued two of its former employees asserting a number of allegations.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
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)
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
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
