Cases: SLAPP – Page 27 – Cal Attorneys Fees

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

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 Central Escrow, Inc. v. Martin, Case No. B234166 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2013) (unpublished) was a malicious prosecution case brought against plaintiffs and their attorneys after they lost a sexual harassment […]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for filing a completely frivolous proceeding in Hayes v. Hutchison, Case No. B237556 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished).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

SLAPP/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $20,000 Fee Award To Winning Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

January 4, 2013

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 In Susott v. Auld-Susott, Case No. H037066 (Jan. 3, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion and the trial court awarded defendant $20,000 in mandatory fees out of a requested $31,976.74.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

SLAPP: Defense Fee Recovery Of $29,026 For Prevailing In SLAPP Grant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

December 12, 2012

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

Civil Rights/SLAPP: Winning Post-Appeal Defendants Properly Awarded SLAPP Fees Against Plaintiff In Civil Rights Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: SLAPP

November 8, 2012

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 In Williams v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B234100 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 8, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff was hit with post-appeal SLAPP fees of over $40,000 when defendants successfully defended a SLAPP grant in a

Allocation/SLAPP: SLAPP Fees Go POOF For One Defendant, But Other Defendant Has To Apportion On Remand For Fee Recovery

Cases: Allocation, Cases: SLAPP

October 27, 2012

$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

SLAPP/POOF!: Reversal Of SLAPP Grant In Qui Tam Actions Means Fee Recovery To The Defense Goes POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

October 25, 2012

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.

SLAPP: Denial Of SLAPP Fees To Defendants Reversed Because Action Was Indeed Frivolous

Cases: SLAPP

October 20, 2012

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,

Landlord/Tenant And SLAPP: Plaintiffs’ Failure To Separately Appeal SLAPP Order Precluded Appellate Review And Defense Entitled To Fee Recovery Under the Mobilehome Residency Law Because Plaintiffs’ Dismissed Complaint Was Based On MRL Violati

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: SLAPP

October 10, 2012

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

SLAPP/POOF!: Reversal Of SLAPP Grant Means Fee Award Goes POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

September 29, 2012

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