Cases: SLAPP

  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 Mar. 11, 2016) (Unpublished).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 […]

  Apportionment Is Not Necessary In This One.      A-Ju Tours, Inc. v. Alleghany Corp., Case Nos. B256956/B259567 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2016) (unpublished) is an interesting SLAPP grant, producing a split merits decision as far as the grant on a claim based on the litigation privilege. Later, prevailing defendant moved for $89,460.90

  SLAPP Fee Award For One Defendant Group Affirmed; SLAPP Fee Denial Against Another Defendant Affirmed.     In Christiansen v. Gross, Case No. B256668 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPP-ed by two defendant groups.  However, the trial judge determined that one defendant group should receive $37,320, while another defendant group

  Defendant’s Public Interest Argument Were Not Totally Devoid Of Merit.      A trial judge can award fees against an unsuccessful defendant if he/she determines that the motion was frivolous or dilatory under CCP § 128.5. A lower court concluded that a defendant’s SLAPP motion, which was denied, fell within the purview of that section,

  Significance/Practical Benefit Were The Factors, Not Complexity Of And Good Faith In Bringing Stricken Cross-Claim.     Plaintiff/cross-defendant, as a cross-defendant, was successful in striking one out of three cross-claims on a SLAPP motion, moving to recoup attorney’s fees/costs for the win.  The trial court denied the motion after determining that the situation was complex

  $13,799 Award Out Of Requested $22,431–No Problem!     Plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution-dominated suit, with the trial court awarding defendant $13,799 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $22,431).  Plaintiff appealed both the merits and attorney’s fees award in Drumea v. 1300 N. Curson Investors LLC, Case Nos. B259733/B261353 (2d

Scenario Involves Tenant Suing Landlord, Landlord Filing Unlawful Detainer Action, And Tenant Filing Anti-SLAPP Motion.      We are not going to even try to guess who feels better – or worse – about the outcome of the appeal in Olive Properties v. Coolwaters Enterprises, Inc., B261105 (2/3 Oct. 30, 2015) (Edmon, Aldrich, Jones) (published).  The

  Reason … Trial Judge Did Not Provide Adequate Specification Of Reasons For Granting Fees To Plaintiff.      Nunez v. Pennisi, Case No. H039910 (6th Dist. Oct. 27, 2015) (published) is a good reminder to plaintiffs winning SLAPP motions and obtaining infrequent fee recovery because the SLAPP motion was frivolous: make sure the lower court

  However, No Authority Supported Vacating Entire Award, Including The Part Of It Against Losing Plaintiff.     In Clements v. Sojourn Properties, Inc., Case No. A141288 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 24, 2015) (unpublished), the appellate court had no trouble vacating a SLAPP fee award of $3,400 against a losing plaintiff’s attorney, given that Moore