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 On March 19, 2016, we posted on Baughn v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which was unpublished at the time.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 […]
. . . . Although Fee Award Made At Same Time As Merits Ruling Can Be Appealed. The First District, Division 3 took the time to reconsider a motion to dismiss a SLAPP plaintiff’s appeal of fairly substantial fee awards after defense grants of a SLAPP motion. (The fee awards totaled over $603,000
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 Mar. 11, 2016) (Unpublished).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 B256956/B259567 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2016) (unpublished) is an interesting SLAPP grant, producing a split merits decision as far as the grant on a claim based on the litigation privilege.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 In Christiansen v. Gross, Case No. B256668 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPP-ed by two defendant groups.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
Backdrop Was Diane Harkey’s Defamation Lawsuit Against State Board of Equalization Candidate After Her Exoneration In Alleged Fraud Charges For Her Husband’s Activities With Point Center Financial. The next post stems from a State Board of Equalization candidate race in which plaintiff, one of the candidates, allegedly made slanderous statements about Diane Harkey,
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
