Cases: SLAPP – Page 24 – Cal Attorneys Fees

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

October 21, 2014

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

October 13, 2014

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

October 3, 2014

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Discovery/Sanctions/SLAPP: Round-Up Of Three Unpublished Decisions On Fee/Sanctions Issues For September 18, 2014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

September 18, 2014

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 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 18, 2014) (unpublished).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: SLAPP Defendant Winning Fee Recovery Could Not Challenge Amount Of Award When No Cross-Appeal Filed

Cases: SLAPP

September 14, 2014

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

Deadlines/Equity/SLAPP: SLAPP Motion Fee Grant Order Was Not Timely Appealed

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Equity, Cases: SLAPP

September 11, 2014

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

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

Cases: SLAPP

August 14, 2014

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)

SLAPP: Post-Remittitur, Lower Court Can Decide If Defense Entitled To SLAPP Fee Recovery For Winning Two Claims, But Not Two Others

Cases: SLAPP

August 13, 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

Appeal Sanctions/SLAPP: $18,456.58 Fee/Costs Award Affirmed To Defense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: SLAPP

July 17, 2014

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

Costs/POOF/SLAPP: Two-Fer—Appellate Costs Award Affirmed Based On Costs Memorandum And $37,857.97 SLAPP Fees/Costs Award Goes POOF! Upon Reversal Of SLAPP Grant

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

July 2, 2014

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