Fee Award Also Correct on the Merits In Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 198 Cal.App.4th 611, 632-633 (2011) [reviewed in our August 20, 2011 post], an appellate court found it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a SLAPP fee request because no appeal had been separately taken from the fee […]
Also, Sanctions Against Attorney Upheld Under CCP § 128.7, But Not SLAPP Statute. ASAP Copy and Print v. Ringgold, Case Nos. B224295/B225702 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 4, 2012) (unpublished) was an incredible donnybrook over a fairly minor dispute involving a photocopier lease/maintenance agreement. The amount of time, trouble, and fees that is
In City of Colton v. Singletary, Case No. E052377 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 30, 2012) (certified for publication), cross-defendant was granted a SLAPP motion on two counts of a cross-complaint brought by City, eventually awarded $5,750 in fees and $80 in costs. City appealed, with the appellate court discussing several SLAPP
Plaintiff Failed to Properly Present His Estoppel Theory For Factual Exploration By the Trial Court; Appealability Issue Did Not Impact Appeal, But Waiver Did. Plaintiff, who suffered an adverse SLAPP fee recovery of $12,633, might have had a chance on appeal on an estoppel theory. However, the problem is that he did not
Owner’s Actions Belied Its Faith In The Merits Of Its Case. The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County People For Animals, Case No. G045556 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 18, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting decision affirming a $120,000-plus attorney’s fees award against the defense after a Brea mall owner voluntarily dismissed a
Appellate Court Divergence on First SLAPP Prong Drove Reversal of SLAPP Fee Award. SLAPP fee awards against defendants/cross-defendants are allowable, but not mandatory as against losing plaintiffs–losing defendants’ efforts must be found to be frivolous in nature, a much higher burden of proof. In the next case, the trial court denied cross-defendants’ SLAPP
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
