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for filing a completely frivolous proceeding in Hayes v. Hutchison, Case No. B237556 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished).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 […]
Later Order Fixing Fees Allowed Appellate Jurisdiction on the Merits; However, Detailed Billing Records Were Not Needed to Substantiate Fee Request. In Susott v. Auld-Susott, Case No. H037066 (Jan. 3, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion and the trial court awarded defendant $20,000 in mandatory fees out of a requested $31,976.74. Plaintiff
Case Did Not Involve Brown Act Open Meeting Issues, So Fee Grant Did Not Fall Within Narrow Exemption. Here is a wild one, at least the facts. The grant of fees to the prevailing SLAPP defendant was another matter, an award affirmed by the appellate court in Tri-City Healthcare District v. Sterling, Case
Appellate Court Refused to Inject Civil Rights Fee “Frivolity” Standards Into SLAPP Mandatory Fee Recovery Statute. In Williams v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B234100 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 8, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff was hit with post-appeal SLAPP fees of over $40,000 when defendants successfully defended a SLAPP grant in a
$82,048 Joint Fee Award Goes Away, But One Defendant Has Another Swing At It. Given that we are in the midst of the World Series between the Giants and Tigers (the Giants having a 2-0 lead at present), it is fitting we review a SLAPP post where one defendant lost fees when a
We know by now that winning defendants get mandatory, reasonable fee recovery after winning a SLAPP motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c)(1).) However, a reversal of a SLAPP grant invokes our “POOF!” principle on the fee award. Defendants in People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp., Case Nos. G045390 et al.
Lower Court’s Refusal to Award Fees Reversed. CCP § 425.16(c)(1) requires a mandatory award of sanctions if the trial court determines an anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay. Plaintiff in Shukartsi v. Kesselman, Case No. B235190 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 19, 2012) (unpublished) lost a SLAPP motion,
Collateral Order Doctrine and MRL “Arising From” Principles Explored. In Hall v. West, Case No. D060402 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 10, 2012) (unpublished), defendants moved to SLAPP plaintiff’s extant complaint, prompting plaintiffs to obtain leave to file a second amended complaint and then dismissing the action without prejudice. The trial court proceeded
A prevailing cross-defendant in a SLAPP proceeding garnered successful fee awards of $7,834.75 and $3,953 against the cross-complainant. However, Peng v. Hong Sang Market, Inc., Case Nos. A133044/A134394 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2012) (unpublished) demonstrates what happens when the appellate court determines that the SLAPP order should have been denied. What
Moving SLAPP Fee Claimant Lost Burden of Proof–Could Not Prove That SLAPP Motion Filed Before Dismissal. Burden of proof is still a potent concept in the law. That is exactly what was dispositive in the next case we explore. In Ing v. Fink, Case No. G045777 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 19,
