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 That is what happened in Martin v. Smith, Case No. A157129 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 26, 2020) (unpublished).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 Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished) successfully SLAPPed a first cause of action, but not other claims.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 In Padilla III v. Jakubaitis, Case No. G057424 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 30, 2020) (unpublished), a SLAPP defendant successfully had stricken one cause of action, with the trial court awarding it about $14,300 in mandatory fees/costs.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 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2020) (unpublished), two plaintiffs asserted separately up to ten claims against each of three defendants for malicious prosecution.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a former employee, plaintiff in Uziel v. Employment Lawyers Group, Case No. B299226 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2020) (unpublished), filed a lawsuit claiming misconduct against defendant law firm that had
Gilbert v. Master Washer Opinion Is Still Good Law On This Issue. In Opperwall v. Stone, Case No. A156200 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 24, 2020) (unpublished), a plaintiff sued an insurer’s counsel for various contractual and tort counts, specifically suing two partners individually of a small law firm. They filed a SLAPP motion
Real Party Has Another Crack At A $86,000 Fee Request Under Private Attorney General And SLAPP Statutes. On May 21, 2020, we posted on Sandlin v. McLaughlin, Case Nos. G057264 et seq. (4th Dist., Dist. 3 May 19, 2020 unpublished; certified for publication on June 17, 2020). There, the 4/3 DCA reversed and remanded
Reasonableness Of Fees Request Will Be The Big Issue. In Herring Networks, Inc. v. Rachel Maddow, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), defendants won a SLAPP motion in a defamation case based on certain comments being protected opinions. Now, the defense—guided by Los Angeles-based Gibson Dunn— is seeking mandatory attorney’s fees of $323,965
4/2 DCA Opinion Counsels That A Plaintiff In This Situation To Ask For Attorney’s Fees In The Opposition To The SLAPP Motion. For readers of our blog, you probably know by now that a plaintiff defeating a frivolous SLAPP motion can be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees if the frivolity standards of CCP §128.5 are
