Cases: SLAPP – Page 26 – Cal Attorneys Fees

SLAPP Winners Denied Fee Recovery Because “Of Counsel” Attorneys Means Self-Representation Rule Applied And Other Attorney Did Not Represent Attorneys Having Exposure Outside Of Being Law Firm Constituents

July 31, 2013

Trope Rule Dictated the Result. In Legaspi v. Spivak, Case No. B240274 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2013) (unpublished), a lower court denied attorney’s fees to winning SLAPP defendants (all attorneys or law firms) based on theTrope rule barring self-represented lawyers from recovering fees. The fee denial was affirmed on appeal. […]

POOF!/SLAPP: Reversal Of SLAPP Grant Means $30,000 Fee Award Went Away.

July 31, 2013

SLAPP Reversal Doomed Prior Fee Award Viability. Reversal on appeal can be cruel in any case, but especially in the SLAPP context. Renewable Resources Coalition, Inc. v. Pebble Mines Corp., Case Nos. B234347/B236218 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 30, 2013) (published) is a good illustration. There, a SLAPP grant in favor of

SLAPP: $106,000 SLAPP Winner Fee Recovery Sustained Upon Review

Cases: SLAPP

June 7, 2013

Requested Hourly Rates Reasonable and Lack of Specific Challenges Doom Fee Challenges. The appellate court in DiMare v. Taylor, Case No. B237373 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 5, 2013) (unpublished) expressed frustration that it could not put an end to a fee division dispute between two attorneys representing plaintiff in a wrongful death-products

SLAPP: $3,150 In Attorney’s Fees Awarded Against Defendant For Frivolous SLAPP Motion Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

April 27, 2013

In Mendoza v. Hamzeh, Case No. 239245 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2013) (partially published, fee discussion not published), a defendant attorney lost a SLAPP motion, which usually does not result in an adverse fee award unless the SLAPP motion was frivolous. Both the lower and appellate courts determined that the

Deadlines/SLAPP: SLAPP Costs/Fee Awards Sustained, Although Some In Pro Per Attorneys Did Not Get Their Fees

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: SLAPP

April 18, 2013

Defendants won a SLAPP motion and were awarded partial fees under the mandatory fee-shifting statute, although some in pro per attorneys were denied some fees under Trope. So, the other side appealed, mainly contending that the fees/costs motions were untimely. Appealing party was not successful in Zhang v. Sugars, Case No. B243152

Appeal Sanctions/SLAPP: Appealing Parties Rue The Day They Appealed

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

April 18, 2013

$20.055 SLAPP Fee/Costs Recovery Affirmed, Plus Appellants Get Hit With Appellate Sanctions Of Over $61,200 For Bringing Frivolous Appeal This next case reminds us that you need to give up after you or your client is on a losing string, especially once a couple of appeals tend to establish an adverse trend. Appealing

Appealability/Fee Clause Interpretation/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees/SLAPP: Appellate Trifecta On Fee Issues

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

March 7, 2013

Marathon Funding, LLC v. Paramount Pictures, Case No. B240723 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 4, 2013) (Unpublished). In this first one, defendant won more than $690,548.90 in posttrial attorney’s fees under an investment agreement providing fees to the winner “in any action, suit, or other proceeding [that] is instituted concerning or arising out

POOF!/SLAPP: Reversal Of SLAPP Grant In Favor Of Some Defendants Meant Fee Award Also Falls

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

February 21, 2013

In De Haas v. Shahinian, Case No. B234726 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2013) (unpublished), certain parties winning a SLAPP motion and subsequent mandatory fees of $35,559 were disappointed on appeal when the appellate court reversed the SLAPP grant. That meant the fees, as well, went POOF! for these parties. (Panakosta Partners,

Malicious Prosecution/SLAPP: SLAPP Victors In Malicious Prosecution Suit Won Aggregate Fees Of About $67,000 For Various Law Attorneys Defending Them

Cases: SLAPP

February 6, 2013

Also, Denial of Fee Award to Prevailing Defendant Under FEHA Action Also Established Probable Cause, Dispensing of Malicious Prosecution Element. Central Escrow, Inc. v. Martin, Case No. B234166 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2013) (unpublished) was a malicious prosecution case brought against plaintiffs and their attorneys after they lost a sexual harassment

SLAPP: $19,500 In Fees Assessed Against Unsuccessful SLAPPing Defendant Reversed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

January 26, 2013

No “Complete” Frivolousness Shown. Defendant losing a SLAPP motion was hit with attorney’s fees of $19,500 for filing a completely frivolous proceeding in Hayes v. Hutchison, Case No. B237556 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished). A frivolous defense motion can be the subject of fee recovery in the SLAPP area under