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., […]
Also, Plaintiff In One Matter Was Not Entitled to Fees For Frivolous SLAPP Motion Where Defendant Partially Prevailed By Knocking Out Allegations. 1. Spencer v. Sinclair, Case No. C082485 (3d Dist. Dec. 23, 2019) (unpublished): One defendant won a SLAPP motion, requesting $51,196 in mandatory attorney’s fees (with reasonableness of the amount requested
Defendants Had Sought $50,190. In Breeze v. Baer, Case Nos. D073898/D074381 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 12, 2019) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion—affirmed on appeal—and a subsequent fee award of $44,890 (out of a requested $50,190). The fee award was affirmed on appeal, too. Appellant challenged the hourly rates as excessive and argued
However, As Against One Defendant, SLAPP Fees Not Allowable On Plaintiff’s Intentional Infliction Of Emotion Distress Claim. In Astre v. McQuaid, Case No. A154945 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 31, 2019) (unpublished), defendants filed a SLAPP motion against plaintiff’s state court complaint, with plaintiff choosing to voluntarily dismiss it without prejudice and seeking relief
Plaintiff Real Estate Developer Failed To Provide The 4th District With Any Evidence That The Award Was Excessive Or Biased. In SCPB Holdings v. Taggett, Case No. D074991 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 25, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff real estate developer sued defendant and others for contractual interference and defamation, among other claims, after a
Sixth District Determined Cause Of Action Was Not Properly SLAPPed Because It Was Triggered By A Dispute That Arose In The Aftermath Of Previous Litigation, Not The Conduct In The Prior Litigation. GBR Magic Sands MHP, LLC v. Pecoraro, Case No. H044936 (6th Dist., Sept. 26, 2019) (unpublished) involves a dispute among family
However, Costs Award Reversed Because It Was Untimely Filed And Prejudiced Plaintiff. In Residual Income Opportunities, Inc. v. Cynergy Data, LLC, Case No. B289219 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 29, 2019) (unpublished), the defense won a SLAPP motion, filing for recovery of costs to the tune of $3,567.77 and moving for attorney’s fees totaling
Appellate Court Had No Problem With $9,000 SLAPP Request For 24 Hours Of Work. Just to show you that abuse of discretion is not an unlimited deferential standard of review, we post on Kohanbash v. Specialty Baking, Inc., Case No. B283117 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 1, 2019) (unpublished). What happened in this case
Trial Court Would Have Granted SLAPP Prior To Dismiss, Such That Amendment Nuanced Argument Did Not Change The Result. In Contreras v. Contreras, Case No. G056710 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2019) (unpublished), a plaintiff dismissed a slander title cause of action while a SLAPP motion was pending although the trial court would
$28,795.70 In Fees Went Away Because SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous. In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission (Xingyun, LLC), Case No. B289179 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 5, 2019) (published), Real Parties were interested in a development project in Venice brought by certain petitioners against the Coastal Commission and City of Los Angeles. Real
