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 Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., Case No. D063980 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 15, 2014) (unpublished) contains a good discussion of the review standard applicable to a lower court ruling denying attorney’s fees to a prevailing SLAPP plaintiff under Code of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 In Christiana v. Plotkin, Case No. B244862 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 27, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff (former defendant in a criminal action) sued defendant psychiatrist who issued a report he did not like on his competency to stand trial/assist his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
Lower Court Erred in Deciding SLAPP Motion Lacked Merit. In Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. Zamora, Case No. B244791 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 31, 2014) (unpublished), cross-complainant ex-employee countersued cross-defendants ex-employer/employer’s CEO for libel, triggering a SLAPP motion by cross-defendants. Before the hearing, ex-employee filed a nonopposition and dismissed the libel count. However,
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
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
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)
