Cases: SLAPP

SLAPP: Fourth District, Division One Decides Lower Trial Court Must Determine If Defendant Would Have Prevailed On The Merits Under SLAPP Statute Where Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses for Purposes of SLAPP Fee Recovery

Cases: SLAPP

  4/1 DCA Notes Split in Opinion; We Predict This One May Be Accepted For Review.      Tourgeman v. Nelson v. Kennard, Case No. D063473 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 16, 2004) (published) dealt with a SLAPP fee recovery issue which has engendered a split in intermediate appellate thinking, which may (as best as we […]

Costs/SLAPP: Plaintiffs Ultimately Losing Against Defendants Did Not Defeat Defense Argument That Defendants Were Routine Costs “Prevailing Parties” Even Though Plaintiffs Won Fees/Costs On Prior Anti-SLAPP Motion

Cases: Costs, Cases: SLAPP

  No Real Case Law on the Precise Issue, But Result is Logical to Appellate Court.      Personalized Workout of La Jolla, Inc. v. Ravet, Case No. D061647 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished) dealt with an interesting issue—whether plaintiffs winning fees/costs in a prior SLAPP proceeding were the parties with a “net

SLAPP/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees/Billing Records: Lower Court Did Not Err In Fashioning Three Fee Awards To Three Winning Defendants Successfully SLAPPing A Malicious Prosecution Action

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Trial Judge Reduced Requests Substantially Due to Severely Redacted Billing Records and General Supporting Attorney Declaration; Further Reductions Not Justified.      Three defendants (as well as their law firms) sought mandatory fee awards after SLAPPing plaintiff’s malicious prosecution action in Du Boise v Peterson, Case Nos. B237764/B240357 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 6, 2013)

SLAPP: $129,938.75 Fee Award To Prevailing Defendant Was No Abuse Of Discretion In Complicated Malicious Prosecution Claim

Cases: SLAPP

  Correctness of Award Reinforced by $14,000 Reduction in Requested Fees.      By now, you followers of our blog know that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) provides for a mandatory award of fees to a winning SLAPP defendant. Because these proceedings are often intensive and involve parsing through lots of documents/issues, large awards are

SLAPP: SLAPP Grant Affirmed, But Fee Award Reversed Because Law Firm Represented Itself In SLAPP Proceeding

Cases: SLAPP

  $3,842 Fee Award Overturned.      Two well-known Orange County based law firms squared off in Catanzarite Law Corp. v. Gordon & Rees, LLP, Case No. G047968 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished).      Plaintiff law firm accused defendant law firm of contractual interference after plaintiff’s former clients apparently did not pay plaintiff

SLAPP: Trial Judge Properly Did Not Award SLAPP Winners For Work Of “Of Counsel” Attorney Under Trope

Cases: SLAPP

  Lawyer Promotional Listings and Social LinkedIn Proof Showed the Affiliation With The Firm Being Defended.      Be careful of what you list out there. That is the lesson from this one, notwithstanding the proliferation of lawyer “hype” listings and LinkedIn social connections.      In Jensen v. Charon Solutions, Inc., Case Nos. B240651/B244155 (2d Dist.,

Prevailing Party/SLAPP: Party Partially Winning Appeal Merits, But Not Winning Fee Award Cross-Appeal Was Not Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP

  Appellate Court Followed Maughan’s “Bright Line” Test on Appeal.      In this one, the appellate court had to review whether a party truly prevailed on appeal in a prior appellate proceeding involving a SLAPP determination. The lower court said the party did, but the appellate court reversed.      White and Yellow Cab, Inc. v.

SLAPP: Appellate Court Affirms Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To SLAPP Winner Who Succeeded In Striking Only Portions Of Defamation Claims

Cases: SLAPP

  Court of Appeal Also Decides that Court Can Strike Portions of Claim Allegations in SLAPP Proceedings.      Cross-defendant in a defamation cross-claim partially won a SLAPP motion by which the lower court granted the motion by striking SLAPP-able allegations and denied the motion by allowing the unprotected theories to remain. The trial judge refused

Scroll to Top