Cases: SLAPP

Reasonableness Of Fees/SLAPP: Winning SLAPP Defendants’ $138,972 Combined Fee Award Affirmed As Reasonable On Appeal

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

  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      In Shalant v. Mackston, Case No. B250208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 8, 2014) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion—the merits of which were never appealed—and plaintiff suffered a combined adverse fee award of $138,972 under the mandatory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 […]

Appeal Sanctions/Attorney Lien/SLAPP: Defendants Trying To “SLAPP” In Fee Dispute Involving Attorney Lien Impact Were Correctly Not Allowed SLAPP Relief

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: SLAPP

  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

SLAPP: SLAPP Winner Properly Denied Fees Where It Failed To Appeal Within 60 Days Of Order Granting SLAPP Motion On Partial Claims

Cases: SLAPP

  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

SLAPP/Settlement: SLAPP Motion Fails Because Even Though Entering Into A Stipulation Governing Settlement Funds May Be Protected Conduct, Releasing The Funds In Breach Of The Agreement Is Not Protected Conduct

Cases: Settlement, Cases: SLAPP

  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

Multiplier/SLAPP/Substantiation Of Fees: $162,000 Fee Award To Two Defendants Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  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.

SLAPP: Independent Contractor Attorney Not Entitled To Recoup SLAPP Fees Where Pleading Captions And Emails Showed He Was A Member Of Recovering SLAPP Defendant Law Firm

Cases: SLAPP

  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.

Discovery/Sanctions/SLAPP: Round-Up Of Three Unpublished Decisions On Fee/Sanctions Issues For September 18, 2014

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

  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

SLAPP: Failure To Appeal From Post-SLAPP Fee Order Was Jurisdictionally Fatal

Cases: SLAPP

  Lesson Again—Separately Appeal Fee Orders.      Currier & Ives. c1877.  Library of Congress.      Plaintiffs were unhappy with a SLAPP grant and subsequent order awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. They were even more unhappy on appeal in Gonzales v. County of Riverside, Case No. E056253 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014)

Scroll to Top