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 […]
$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 v. Gordon & Rees, LLP, Case No. G047968 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished).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
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.,
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.
Second Attorney’s SLAPP Grant Reversed Because Conduct Arose Out of Fee Dispute Over Value of Services, Not Protected Activities. Law Offices of Jacob Emrani v. Mininsohn, Case No. G047476 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2013) (unpublished; author: Justice Aronson) is a case where a second attorney obtained a SLAPP grant against a
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
$2,575.04 Fee Award to State Bar Went Away. Barry v. The State Bar of California, Case No. B242054 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2013) (published) involved an attorney who challenged a stipulation she reached with the State Bar resolving two disciplinary cases against her. She filed a civil action seeking to set
“Public Interest” Argument by Defense Was Not Frivolous. In Albanese v. Menounos, Case No. B240866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 7, 2013) (published), plaintiff defeated a defense SLAPP motion on the basis no public interest was involved. Although the determination was affirmed on appeal, plaintiff requested fees from the appellate court because the
SLAPP Work Benefiting Non-Attorney and Attorney Defendants Was Okay, As Long As a True “Co-Benefit.” In Klinger v. Alderete, Case No. B245403 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 6, 2013) (unpublished), both non-attorney and attorney parties obtained a SLAPP dismissal of a malicious prosecution action. Then, all of the winning defendants were awarded attorney’s
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.
