Also, Trial Judge Did Reduce The $23,650 Fee Ask Down To $14,850. Plaintiff lost a defamation action based on defendant’s successful anti-SLAPP motion, with the lower court awarding mandatory fees of $14,850 (which was lower than the $23,650 “ask” of the defendant). The award was affirmed on appeal in Tye v. Papp, Case No. […]
Winning Defendant Did Something Smart: After SLAPP Motion Granted, Offered To Stipulate To A Much Lower Fees And Costs Award, Rejected By Plaintiff. When it comes to the reasonableness of a fee award, we have posted on situations where the prevailing party offered to stipulate to a lower fees/costs award and then obtained a
Everyone Gets To Keeping Litigating! In Sayarad v. Butler-Lopez, Case No. A166884 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 6, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff suffered a partial grant of a SLAPP motion, resulting in an adverse attorney’s fees award as to one defendant of $42,031.50, and with the lower court denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on
Renewed Fee Motion Was Timely, Where Original Fee Motion Was Filed Within Deadlines. In Shih v. Max, Case No. B324437 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2024) (unpublished), lower court denied two defendants’ SLAPP fee motions as moot after plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint before the SLAPP motion could be heard, although there were
Plaintiff’s Appeal Of The Later Judgment Incorporating Fees Was Appealable, But Lower Court’s $62,500 Fee Award Was No Abuse Of Discretion. In Norman v. Ross, Case Nos. B316971 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 23, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion not published), three defendants won a SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s claims, while two
Opinion Validates Our Recommendation In Many Posts To Separately Appeal An Adverse Fee Order Or Appeal Both Rulings In A Combined Appeal If Possible. In Williams v. Doctors Med. Center of Modesto, Inc., Case Nos. F084700 et al. (5th Dist. Mar. 27, 2024) (published), plaintiff separately appealed the granting of a SLAPP motion and
Client’s SLAPP Motion Was Properly Denied. In Fink & Associates v. Finato, Case No. B325604 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 19, 2024) (unpublished), a lower court denied former client’s attempt to SLAPP former attorney’s cross-claims to recover a contingency fee after a settlement was reached. The 2/1 DCA affirmed because the nonpayment of monies
No Final Judgment Was Entered, And Collateral Order Doctrine Did Not Apply Because The Fee Order Did Not Order Payment Of Money By Partially Prevailing Cross-Defendant. Cross-defendant in Delis v. Thorn, Case No. F084879 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished) successfully SLAPP-ed 4 out of 5 cross-claims, moved for mandatory SLAPP fees, and was
Challenges Were To Lower Court’s Discretionary Calls, With The 25% Reduction Below Showing Discretion Was Exercised. Smith v. Entrepreneur Media, Inc., Case No. G060839 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 18, 2023) (unpublished), authored by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, is another illustration as to why challenges to the amount of attorney’s fees awarded are on
However, Lower Court Had To Determine If SLAPP Motion Had Merits, Which It Did. In Mendez v. Flores, Case No. C095501 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiffs dismissed their complaint after the defense moved to SLAPP it. The lower court awarded the defense $19,608 in SLAPP fees after determining it had jurisdiction to
