Cases: SLAPP

  $17,124.79 Fee Award Upheld On Appeal.      In Gonzalez v. Burtech Pipeline Incorporated, Case No. E063314 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 8, 2016) (unpublished), a cross-defendant successfully “SLAPPed” a cross-complaint and also moved for fees, garnering a $17,124.79 fee award. Cross-complainant appealed on the merits (losing) and on the fee award (also losing). Appellant’s […]

  Dealt With Fee Award Of $30,752.86 On SLAPP Motion, Although $152,529.15 Requested.     On May 20, 2016, we posted on 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, a Fourth District, Division One unpublished decision which affirmed a SLAPP fee award in favor of a prevailing defendant, with defendant only obtaining $30,752.86

  Conduct Arising Out Of Contractual Relationship, Not Protected Activities, Involved.     In CBRE, Inc. v. Mission Viejo Gateway, Inc., Case No. B255934 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 13, 2016) (unpublished), CBRE sued a defendant in a commercial property dispute to recover a lost commission and litigation expenses based on contractual/equitable indemnity principles, seeking to

  Hours Reduced Mainly On Requested Hourly Rate And For Unrelated SLAPP Work.      In Ocean’s Eleven Casino v. Anders, Case No. D067343 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 3, 2016) (unpublished), an in pro per plaintiff obtained a reversal of a SLAPP denial in a prior appeal (retaining an attorney on the eve of oral

  4/1 DCA Follows Tourgeman Decision Rather Than Coltrain On The Issue.     Egley v. Sparks, Case No. D067648 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 19, 2016) (unpublished) reversed a lower court’s grant of $17,000.50 in mandatory fees to a winning defendant in a case after plaintiff voluntarily dismissed but before the defense SLAPP motion could

  Case Was Complex And Involved Unique Issues.     In El Monte Rents, Inc. v. Aequitas Law Group, Case No. B256665 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 17, 2016) (unpublished), the defense was granted attorney’s fees of $48,602 out of a requested $50,0004 in a SLAPP grant in a malicious prosecution action.  The appellate court affirmed,

  It Held That Simply Because Plaintiff Prevailed On SLAPP Motion Did Not Establish Frivolity Requirement To Award Fees Against The Losing Defense.     On March 19, 2016, we posted on Baughn v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which was unpublished at the time.  It held that simply because a plaintiff prevails on a

  Baughn v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, Case No. C072462 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2016) (Unpublished).      In this one, plaintiffs were awarded SLAPP fees by the lower court under the authority that the defense SLAPP motion was frivolous in nature under CCP § 425.16(c)(1). The problem here was that the lower court