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 In Phelps v. McBratney, Case No. A156638 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 23, 2020) (unpublished), defendants lost a SLAPP motion (appealing the merits determination and losing).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 […]
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
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 August 27, 2020) in our August 27, 2020 post – a partially published case, with the fee discussion unpublished.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,
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
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 That is what happened in Martin v. Smith, Case No. A157129 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 26, 2020) (unpublished).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,
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 Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished) successfully SLAPPed a first cause of action, but not other claims.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
Defendant’s Claims Of Litigation Privilege And Anti-SLAPP Law Protections Were No Defense Of Her Violations Of Restraining Order. Self-represented husband and wife were involved in litigation through various lawsuits against self-represented ex-girlfriend of husband – claiming ex-girlfriend conspired with others to fraudulently obtain money, including substantial sums allegedly conned from husband. Husband’s relationship with
Requested Fees/Costs Of Almost $6,700 Were Not Reasonable Or Necessary Under CCP § 685.040. In Padilla III v. Jakubaitis, Case No. G057424 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 30, 2020) (unpublished), a SLAPP defendant successfully had stricken one cause of action, with the trial court awarding it about $14,300 in mandatory fees/costs. While things were
Plaintiffs’ Claims of Duplicative Efforts, Excessive Hourly Rates, And Inefficiencies Were Not Supported By The Record. In Truong v. Philhower, Case Nos. GO55054 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2020) (unpublished), two plaintiffs asserted separately up to ten claims against each of three defendants for malicious prosecution. These nearly sixty claims
Plaintiff Now Facing A Third Round Of Fees From Second Unsuccessful Appeal. After settling a case brought against his company by a former employee, plaintiff in Uziel v. Employment Lawyers Group, Case No. B299226 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2020) (unpublished), filed a lawsuit claiming misconduct against defendant law firm that had
