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 (4th Dist., Dist. 3 May 19, 2020 unpublished; certified for publication on June 17, 2020).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
Defense Request Of $448,745 Was Rejected By Lower Court, Which Defense Did Not Object To On Appeal. Just to tell ya, Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Case Nos. G056117/G056511 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 19, 2020 (unpublished) is a long-standing battle with many appeals. Defendants won a SLAPP
Fifth District Did Not Have To Decide If Indigency Of Plaintiff, An Argument Not Raised Before The Trial Judge, Could Justify A Fee Reduction Under SLAPP Fee Statute. The plaintiff/appellant in Cruz v. Abdelaziz, Case No. F077506 (5th Dist. May 6, 2020) (unpublished) got SLAPPed and then failed to file an opposition to a
Appellate Court Also Sanctioned Appellant’s Attorney For Relying On Unpublished DCA Opinions. Westreich v. Higa, Case No. B293726 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 5, 2020) (unpublished) has two big warnings for attorneys arguing before California appellate courts: make sure you have a reporter’s transcript in the appellate record when you are challenging the amount
Trial Judge Showed Discretion By Reducing Down The Fee Request Of $5,265 Based On The Hours Requested. In Olson v. Sardi, Case No. E071991 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 30, 2020) (unpublished), defendant successfully won a SLAPP motion based on a negative review of plaintiff for counseling services to his son, with the review
Plaintiff CEO Was Unable To Prove His Claim Against Employee And His Counsel For Their Efforts To Add Him As Judgment Debtor To Underlying Lawsuit Stemmed From Malicious Prosecution As Opposed To Protected Activity. Khanna v. Sonasoft Corp. – from our July 13, 2016 and October 15, 2019 posts – is the underlying
Determination Of Frivolousness Of SLAPP Motion Is Within Discretion Of Trial Court, But 2/1 DCA’s Partial Reversal Of Trial Court’s Denial Was Further Evidence That SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous. In Oldman v. Bates, Case No. B296539 (2d Dist., Div. 1 March 27, 2020) (unpublished), Kurt Oldman and Dieter Hartmann were hired by
A “Re-Do” Was In Order Here. SLAPP cross-defendants likely were pleased when a trial judge granted a SLAPP motion, followed by a $31,990 fee award based on the mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting statute. Well, the result was tarnished a bit based on the appellate court’s decision in Sarao v. Barker, Case Nos. B294816/B296391 (2d Dist.,
