Hearsay Evidence Could Be Credited By Analogy To A Family Law Case—Problematic, But OK Because Unpublished. In Berry v. Pope Valley Union Elementary School Dist., Case No, A171352 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 2, 2025) (unpublished), defendants won SLAPP motions and were awarded roughly $11,000 at the trial court level. Those rulings held up […]
Multiple Grounds Supported The Fee Denial. By now, followers of our blog know that plaintiffs can request fees for denial of a defense anti-SLAPP motion if the lower court believes that the defense motion was frivolous under CCP § 128.5 standards. In ANE Holdings, LLC v. Purity Preserved, LLC, Case No. D083065 (4th Dist.,
… But Plaintiff’s Uncivil Remarks In Appellate Briefing Led The Court Of Appeal To Deny It Costs On Appeal. Incivility is a recurring theme by trial and appellate courts. This opinion is one that, yet again, reinforces that attorneys should refrain from making attacks against opposing counsel and the trial judge. In WasteXperts,
Appellate Court Agreed That Plaintiff Did Not Have An Opportunity To Comply With CCP § 128.5 Safe Harbor Sanctions Provision, But Indicated It Should Be Followed Absent Exceptional Circumstances. In Chang v. Brooks, Case Nos. B320278 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 14, 2025) (unpublished), defendant’s SLAPP motion was determined to be properly
However, They Did Not Get Their Request of $1.9 Million In Fees. In Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case Nos. A166007/A167416 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2025) (published), seven defendants prosecuted a prior appeal which resulted in the lower court’s granting of SLAPP motions and the later awarding of $683,417.50 in fees and
Given The Enormous Successful By The Defense On The SLAPP Motion, No Need To Reverse The Fees Award On Appeal. Many practitioners are familiar with the general principle that the reversal of a merits judgment many times will result in reversal of a fees award, because the degree of success needs to be figured
The Fee Award Was In An Unspecified, Reduced Amount. Helix Media LLC v. Clark, Case No. B332861 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 23, 2025) (unpublished) reminds plaintiffs to be prudent in bringing SLAPP motions; plaintiff in the case had a SLAPP motion declared frivolous, resulting in a reduced attorney’s fees award of $81,193.45.
Prevailing Party Had The Right To Have A Hearing On The Fee Motion, With The Other Side Reserving Its Objections To Fee Recovery. In Ruano v. Goldberg, Case No. B326833 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 21, 2025) (unpublished), a defendant prevailed on a SLAPP motion and then moved separately for fees. The lower court
Appeal Was Dismissed. The defense in Ali v. Dignity Health, Case No. B331058 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 31, 2024) (unpublished) won some aspects of a SLAPP motion and was granted some mandatory fees, but the defense appealed and claimed that the SLAPP motion should have been granted in entirety and more fees awarded.
Also, Trial Judge Did Reduce The $23,650 Fee Ask Down To $14,850. Plaintiff lost a defamation action based on defendant’s successful anti-SLAPP motion, with the lower court awarding mandatory fees of $14,850 (which was lower than the $23,650 “ask” of the defendant). The award was affirmed on appeal in Tye v. Papp, Case No.
