“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 In Klinger v. Alderete, Case No. B245403 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 6, 2013) (unpublished), both non-attorney and attorney parties obtained a SLAPP dismissal of a malicious prosecution action.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 In Legaspi v. Spivak, Case No. B240274 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2013) (unpublished), a lower court denied attorney’s fees to winning SLAPP defendants (all attorneys or law firms) based on theTrope rule barring self-represented lawyers from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.
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
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 The appellate court in DiMare v. Taylor, Case No. B237373 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 5, 2013) (unpublished) expressed frustration that it could not put an end to a fee division dispute between two attorneys representing plaintiff in a wrongful death-products
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
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
$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
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
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,
