Reason Was Matter Remanded To Determine If Defense Met Burden To SLAPP For Several Causes of Action. The SLAPP statute certainly has generated a lot of jurisprudence since its enactment. The defense winning a SLAPP motion gets mandatory reasonable, causally-related fees, while a plaintiff subject to a frivolous SLAPP motion can get discretionary […]
Also, CCP § 177.5 $1,000 Sanctions Award Reviewable Only By Writ. In Shalant v. Mackston, Case No. B250208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 8, 2014) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion—the merits of which were never appealed—and plaintiff suffered a combined adverse fee award of $138,972 under the mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting statute. One
However, Winning Plaintiff Attorney Negotiating Personal Injury Settlement Not Entitled to SLAPP Fee-Shifting Fees or Frivolous Appeal Sanctions. Well, we have an appellate court decision saying fees disputes do not rise to constitutional protected activity under the SLAPP statute. We are not offended, because these usually are more in the nature of private
Appeal From Voluntary Dismissal of Remaining Claims Was Untimely. Defendant winning an anti-SLAPP motion on many claims sought to recover fees of $56,062.50 after learning that plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims. Unfortunately, defendant moved to recoup SLAPP fees based on the date of the voluntary dismissal, rather than the earlier anti-SLAPP order
A Twist: SLAPP Attorney’s Fees Not At Issue Here – Rather “Wrongful” Distribution Of Funds Held By Attorney Leads To Lawsuit And SLAPP Motion. In the typical SLAPP case we report about, the issue is whether attorney’s fees will be recovered for prevailing on a SLAPP motion. But in our next case, the
1.25 Multiplier Allowed, Lack of Specific Challenges Did Not Lead to Major Reductions, and Prior SLAPP Awards Were Not Dispositive. If you have followed our blog, you known there is a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of SLAPP defendant winners. In Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez, Case Nos. B243205/B246602 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct.
Tax Characterization as Independent Contractor Was Not Dispositive Under Trope Prohibition. Well, given that this is in our Mission Statement on this blog, we love the beginning of the next case: “This case illustrates that “[a]ll too often attorney fees become the tail that wags the dog in litigation.” (Deane Gardenhome Assn. v.
Estate of Johnson, Case Nos. A134733 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 18, 2014) (unpublished). An attorney was sanctioned for $7,290 (representing fees incurred by another litigant) for making a false allegation in a probate Third Amended Petition. The basis for the award was under CCP § 128.7. The award was reversed
Defendant Obtained An Affirmance of the Merits SLAPP Ruling, But the Lack of a Cross-Appeal Was Fatal to the Defense Argument That the Fee Award Was Too Low. If you are a SLAPP defendant winning a fee recovery after a SLAPP grant, but feel the award was too low, make sure you cross-appeal
Also, CCP § 473 Motion to Vacate Denial Order Was Timely, But Mandatory Relief Not Available And Discretionary Relief Properly Denied For Lack Of Diligence. Grinberg v. Kalili, Case No. B245899 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 10, 2014) (unpublished) originated as a dispute over the suitability of a $158,000 Ferrari, with the plaintiff
