$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 Plaintiff in Shukartsi v. Kesselman, Case No. B235190 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 19, 2012) (unpublished) lost a SLAPP motion,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 In Hall v. West, Case No. D060402 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 10, 2012) (unpublished), defendants moved to SLAPP plaintiff’s extant complaint, prompting plaintiffs to obtain leave to file a second amended complaint and then dismissing the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 A133044/A134394 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2012) (unpublished) demonstrates what happens when the appellate court determines that the SLAPP order should have been denied.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,
Mossman v. Naranjo, Case No. D059054 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2012) (Unpublished)–CAR Form Real Estate Contract Covers Fees Won For Real Property Nondisclosure Claims. Plaintiffs/buyers won fraud-based claims for property nondisclosures from defendants/sellers, but defendants won the contract based claim. The lower court denied fees to both parties, finding no prevailing
$8,744.50 Fee Award Affirmed on Appeal. The underlying dispute was a homeowner-homeowner association (HOA) dispute in which defendants represented HOA but homeowner sued the HOA attorneys for legal malpractice. Defendants won a SLAPP motion and were awarded $8,744.50. Homeowner appealed the adverse result in Kumar v. Robert E. Weiss Inc., Case No.
Breach of Contract SLAPP Win Validated Fees, Given That This Win Also Resulted In Ultimate Adjudication of Compelling Arbitration Claim in Favor of Winner. Sahlolbei v. Montgomery, Case No. E053031 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting procedurally-driven case where plaintiff sued defendant for breaching a settlement agreement and
Both Sides Appealed, Both Sides Did Not Gain Anything Upon Review. In County of San Bernardino v. San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Assn., Case Mp/ E051576 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 26, 2012) (unpublished), County lost a SLAPP motion and was assessed $49,500 through an adverse mandatory fee award (even though the defense
