Especially Where Lower Court Reduced It Down From $36,000 Request, Although Defendant Will Get More Fees For Winning On Appeal. Ya gotta be careful what you ask for, especially when a trial court orders much lower statutory fees in a mandatory fee-shifting context. If you lose, you are stuck with the award you […]
However, Cautionary Footnote from Appellate Panel Bears Noting for Trial Courts and Practitioners Alike. Winning SLAPP defendants were awarded $20,165.04 (out of a requested $36,472.04) in attorney’s fees under the mandatory fee-shifting provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The appellate court affirmed under the abuse of discretion standard in Mestler
Appellate Opinion Also Has Interesting Published Discussion on Tentative Ruling Acquiescence. In Mundy v. Lenc, Case No. B227962 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 29, 2012) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published), disabled plaintiff/cross-defendant litigant and his attorney was hit with a $21,506.25 fee award for bringing a “frivolous” SLAPP motion. (NOTE
Informative Discussion of SLAPP Fee Appealability Cases and Block Billing Implications. Though unpublished, the appellate decision in LegacyQuest v. Rosen, Case No. A129177 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2012) (unpublished) has a great discussion of SLAPP fee order appealability issues as well as trial court discretion relating to block billing time submissions
Defense Motion Was Not Frivolous In Nature. Though successful defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees for winning a SLAPP motion, they are not exposed to fees unless their motion is found to be frivolous in nature. That frivolousness test was not met in Mandurrago v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, Case No. H036488 (6th
Numerous Challenges to SLAPP Award Rejected. In LaMunyon v. Reid & Hellyer, APC, Case No E052887 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 9, 2011) (unpublished), the appellate court sustained a mandatory fee award to the defense of $37,000 (broken down $17,000 for trial court services and $20,000 for successful prior appellate work) in winning
Ruling So Held in Strange Peremptory Challenge of Deciding Trial Judge. The next case occurred in the context of a rather strange procedural framework. In Rolla v. Speidel, Case No. D05783 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2011) (unpublished), the original trial judge granted a peremptory challenge and the case was assigned
Noerr-Pennington Sham Exception Did Not Need to be Hurdled By City, Resulting in Affirmance of $226,928 Fee Award. The Sixth District in Vargas v. City of Salinas, Case No. H035207 (6th Dist. Nov. 18, 2011) (certified for publication), a case that had gone up to the California Supreme Court and back through the
One Remanded; The Other Affirmed. Here is a situation we do not blog on that much: fee awards against the defense for bringing frivolous SLAPP motions, fully allowable under CCP § 425.16(c)(1). In Mazzaferri v. Mazzaferro, Case No. A131076 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 9, 2011) (unpublished), defendants were sanctioned for filing
$16,000 Deduction for Unnecessary Collaboration Showed No Abuse of Discretion. McCoy v. Walczak, Case No. A129671 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 21, 2011) (unpublished) involved a situation where a trial court denied a timely filed fee motion by a winning SLAPP defendant in a defamation suit “without prejudice,” but later awarded $92,898 to
