Hourly Rates Were Reasonable, And 28% Reduction Cemented The Conclusion. In Ellis v. Mercury Ins. Co., Case No. E064749 (4th Dist., Div. 2 April 14, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion and then lost an appeal of the SLAPP merits loss. The lower court then awarded the defendant insurance company $8,797.50 […]
California Supreme Court Decides Any Other Interpretation Would Gut SLAPP Policies. The California Supreme Court, in Barry v. State Bar of California, Case No. S214058 (Cal. Supreme Court Jan. 5, 2017), confronted the issue of whether a prevailing defendant (the State Bar) was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs when
Word To The Wise—Both Losing Plaintiff And Plaintiff’s Counsel Should Appeal The Sanctions Award. The Inland Oversight Comm. v. Yates, Case No. E064787 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 8, 2016) (unpublished) is a decision having a good cautionary lesson for a nonprevailing plaintiff and its counsel when plaintiff’s attorney is hit with CCP
$152,529.95 Fee Request Slashed Down To $30,752.86 Through Actual Fee Order. On May 20, 2016 and June 20, 2016, we posted on a case which was later accepted for rehearing by the same appellate panel. The opinion upon rehearing is now out in 569 East County Blvd. LLC v. Backcountry Against The Drop,
Plaintiff’s Challenges To Hourly Rates, Billing Substantiation, And Staffing Rejected By Trial and Appellate Courts. Lund v. Gifford, Case No. B259366 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 2, 2016) (unpublished) is a good example of how a successful defendant’s attorneys should draft a fee petition after winning a SLAPP motion on behalf of their
SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous, And Appeal Court Did Not Find Prior Appeal Frivolous In Nature. Defendant filed a SLAPP motion which was denied, appealing without success. Then, upon remand, the lower court awarded attorney’s fees on appeal in favor of plaintiff and against defendant (and possibly its attorneys) to the tune of
Probate—Corman v. Corman, Case No. B251513 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 29, 2016) (Unpublished)—Partial Beneficiary Success Did Not Justify Fee Award. In this first one, there was a nasty probate fight (I guess one could conjecture whether any are other than nasty) over trust accountings, which pitted the trustees against beneficiaries in most
$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 In Gonzalez v. Burtech Pipeline Incorporated, Case No. E063314 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 8, 2016) (unpublished), a cross-defendant successfully “SLAPPed” a cross-complaint and also moved for fees, garnering a $17,124.79 fee award.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
However, Fee Order Affirmed Due To Inadequate Record. In Van v. Cameron, Case No. D068630 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 14, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion and was hit with a mandatory fee award of $24,815.75. Plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful on the merits. Although the defense raised the argument that the SLAPP
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
