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) […]
Inquiry on Remand is Whether Defense Was Really Successful in a SLAPP Sense. Covarrubias v. Union Adjustment Co., Inc., Case No. B250489 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 12, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting SLAPP case where the appellate court reversed the denial of a defense SLAPP motion on two claims but sustained the
Appellate Court Found No Abuse of Discretion, Given Trial Court Reduced From Requested $39,104.58 Fees/Costs—However, 1.5 Multiplier Was Proper. In Meaux v. Springfield, Case No. A139840 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 16, 2014) (unpublished), defense prevailing on a SLAPP motion requested $39,104.58 in fees/costs (inclusive of a 2.0 multiplier, but not for “fees
Karnazes v. Hartford, Case No. A139421 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 27, 2014) (unpublished) In a long-standing antagonistic battle between two former law partners, a cross-respondent was awarded costs by the appellate court after a cross-appeal was dismissed. The winner then filed a costs memo for $627.50 in appeals costs, prompting yet another appeal after
Lower Court Divested Of Jurisdiction, And Neither Side Cited Controlling Precedent. Intermediate appellate courts in California try to (and, largely do) get it right in the large stream of cases they handle each year. In some cases, this means that they find the controlling precedent for resolution of a particular cause. That
Court Reduced Requested Fees by 40%. If you are on appeal of a fee award, unless a fee entitlement issue is involved, the hardest thing to do is challenge the reasonableness of the fee award unless shocking in nature on a facial basis. That is so because reasonableness of the fees is an
Must Show Objective Speciousness and Subjective Bad Faith. Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., Case No. D063980 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 15, 2014) (unpublished) contains a good discussion of the review standard applicable to a lower court ruling denying attorney’s fees to a prevailing SLAPP plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1). In this
Fees Can Be Substantial–$47,036.45 In This One. Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC, Case Nos. B237424/B239375 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 15, 2014) (published) involved former attorneys SLAPPing a client in a malicious prosecution suit. Although having to decide whether a one or two year statute of limitations applied
$22,597.50 SLAPP Fee Award Based On Litigation Privileged Affirmed On Appeal. In Christiana v. Plotkin, Case No. B244862 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 27, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff (former defendant in a criminal action) sued defendant psychiatrist who issued a report he did not like on his competency to stand trial/assist his appointed public
Appealing Parties Could Not Surmount Abuse of Discretion Standard on Second SLAPP Fee Award. In Graham-Sult v. Clainos, Case No. 11-16779 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2014) (published), one defendants obtained a SLAPP fee recovery of $126,431.50 (out of a requested $133,431.50) and a second group of defendants obtained a SLAPP fee recovery of $248,506
