Remand Was Required Because Appellate Court Reversed SLAPP Grant On Three Out Of Six Cross-Claims. City of San Jose v. Gradetech, Inc., Case No. H051462 (6th Dist. June 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a cross-defendant successfully SLAPPed a cross-complaint with six causes of action brought by the City and where the lower […]
Trial And Appellate Fees/Costs Remanded To The Trial Court, Given Cross-Defendants’ Partial Success. Wald v. Martin, Case Nos. B335960 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 16, 2025) (unpublished), illustrates how a partial reversal of a SLAPP grant generally leads to a reversal and remand of the subsequent fees/costs award to a prevailing defendant
Cross-Complainants Did Fess Up To The Problem, With The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Sanctions Hearing Further Showing No Abuse Of Discretion In The Denial Of The Sanctions Request. Although we take the cases as we find them for posting purposes, the next one was a dispute over an apparent snafu in
Self-Represented In Pro Per Plaintiff Could Not Surmount Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Amount Of Fees. We know by now that the SLAPP statute has a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of successful defendants. So unless timeliness is an issue, the amount of the fees to be awarded is usually the pivotal issue. In
Hearsay Evidence Could Be Credited By Analogy To A Family Law Case—Problematic, But OK Because Unpublished. In Berry v. Pope Valley Union Elementary School Dist., Case No, A171352 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 2, 2025) (unpublished), defendants won SLAPP motions and were awarded roughly $11,000 at the trial court level.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
