Cases: SLAPP – Page 27 – Cal Attorneys Fees

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Marathon Funding, LLC v. Paramount Pictures, Case No. B240723 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 4, 2013) (Unpublished).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In De Haas v. Shahinian, Case No. B234726 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2013) (unpublished), certain parties winning a SLAPP motion and subsequent mandatory fees of $35,559 were disappointed on appeal when the appellate court reversed the SLAPP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 Central Escrow, Inc. v. Martin, Case No. B234166 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2013) (unpublished) was a malicious prosecution case brought against plaintiffs and their attorneys after they lost a sexual harassment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for filing a completely frivolous proceeding in Hayes v. Hutchison, Case No. B237556 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished).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

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

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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 In Susott v. Auld-Susott, Case No. H037066 (Jan. 3, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion and the trial court awarded defendant $20,000 in mandatory fees out of a requested $31,976.74.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