Cases: SLAPP

Appealability, SLAPP: Litigant’s Failure To Identify Fee Award In Notice Of Appeal Prevented Appellate Court From Entertaining The Challenge

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Appellate Court Did Note Split On Appealability Issue Which Was Unnecessary To Resolve.             A litigant only appealed a SLAPP ruling, never mentioning a fee award as also being challenged in the notice of appeal. That made it an easy call for the 2/8 DCA in Mostafavi v. Kingsley, Case No. B286081 (2d Dist., Div. […]

SLAPP: SLAPP Fee Award To Defendants—One Half Of Their Request—Was Proper

Cases: SLAPP

Various Challenges Did Not Prevail.             Defendants prevailed on their anti-SLAPP motion, which requires mandatory fees in the trial judge’s discretion. They asked for $44,656.73, but were awarded $22,000, but plaintiff still appealed in Lavi v. Cohen, Case Nos. B281352/B284653 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 31, 2018) (unpublished). They were not successful on appeal.            

SLAPP: Winning SLAPP Defendants’ $244,418.57 Fee Request Correctly Pared Down To $69,500 For The Final Fee Award

Cases: SLAPP

Fee Request Claimed High Hourly Rates And Inflated Work Requests.             By now, readers will know that winning defendants in SLAPP motions are entitled to a fee recovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c)(1).) Despite this entitlement, however, the fee request must be reasonable under the lodestar analysis, allowing a trial judge to deny entirely or

SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendants Obtaining Dismissal of Civil Harassment Petition Entitled To Fee Recovery, But Trial Court Correctly Ruled Defendants Not Entitled To SLAPP Relief Such That Other Fee Work Could Not Be Recovered

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Both Sides Appealed, But Trial Court’s Fee Recovery Orders Were Affirmed.             In Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 30, 2018) (unpublished), defendants were awarded $40,000 in attorney’s fees based on defeating plaintiff’s civil harassment action but were denied additional fees based on the defense SLAPP motions because the lower

SLAPP: Defense, Although Somewhat Raising Winning Argument Late In The Game, Was Entitled To SLAPP Winner Fees

Cases: SLAPP

However, Trial judge Was Right In Reducing $50,295 Fee Request Down To $33,759.28.             By now, our readers know that SLAPP defendants are entitled to mandatory attorney’s fee awards. However, there is an important “but.” That “but” is that the defense requested fees must be reasonable, with a large amount of discretion imbued to the

SLAPP: Defendants Properly Awarded Discounted Fees Against SLAPP-ed Plaintiff And Properly Denied Fee Request Against Plaintiff’s Attorney

Cases: SLAPP

$14,000 Fee Award Against Plaintiff Affirmed, But Denial Of Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Attorney Affirmed Also.              In Boodaie v. Vosoghi, Case No. B280032 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 2, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff did not oppose a defense SLAPP motion. Plaintiff appealed a subsequent fee award of $14,000 (out of a requested $20,475) on the

SLAPP: Plaintiff’s Failure To Oppose Fee Motion Below, Failure To Appeal Merits Determination Of SLAPP Motion, And Failure To Include An Adequate Record Doomed His Appeal Of SLAPP Fee Award

Cases: SLAPP

Result Was Affirmance Of Trial Court Award Of $16,289.11 In Fees/Costs For The Defense.             In Dellinger v. Harn, Case No. C082821 (3d Dist. June 28, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff (a government relations and political consultant) earlier won a jury trial by which a jury said he did not have to return $10,000 paid to him

SLAPP: Attorney SLAPP Winner Providing Conflicting Testimony Denied SLAPP Fees Because Trial Judge Properly Was Worried About Inconsistencies In Testimony As To Amount Of Fees, Whether She Represented Herself, And Whether “Of Counsel” Colleague Was A

Cases: SLAPP

Case Highlights That Inconsistencies In Declaration Testimony Can Doom A Law-And-Motion Proceeding Request.             Thomas v. Makovoz, Case No. B281322 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 12, 2018) (unpublished) is a doozy of a case where inconsistencies in an attorney’s SLAPP fee submissions tanked efforts to obtain fee recovery after she won a defense SLAPP motion with

Scroll to Top