Cases: SLAPP

SLAPP/POOF!: $38,784.50 Fee Award Goes POOF! Upon Reversal Of SLAPP Grant

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

       In Panakosta Partners, LP v. Hammer Lane Management, LLC, Case No. C065812 (3d Dist. Sept. 27, 2011) (certified for publication), minority limited partners were hit with an adverse fee award of $38,784.50 when majority partners SLAPPed them for bringing a petition for buyout (to avoid a judicial dissolution) under Corporations Code section 15908.02. […]

SLAPP: Striking SLAPP Motion For Untimeliness Does Not Mean Motion Was Frivolous So That Plaintiff Should Be Awarded Fees

Cases: SLAPP

  Also, CCP Section 128.5 Standards Do Apply to SLAPP Statute, Even Though 128.5 Is Long Gone.      The Second District, Division 3 answered two questions under the SLAPP statute provision that allows a lower court to award fees to a winning plaintiff, the SLAPP opponent.      Usually, a prevailing defendant automatically is awarded reasonable

SLAPP: Be Careful Of Bringing A Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action

Cases: SLAPP

  If You Defended Quickly, Bringing This Might Open You Up to SLAPP Fees, Fourth District, Division 3 States In an Interesting Footnote.      Although not dealing directly with attorney’s fees, a recent unpublished Fourth District, Division 3 decision should give all litigators pause when thinking about filing a malicious prosecution action after defending against

SLAPP: Second District, Div. 3 Reverses Order Awarding Fees to SLAPP Defendant

Cases: SLAPP

Court of Appeal Reverses With Directions to Trial Court to Determine if SLAPP Defendant is Entitled to Fees and the Reasonable Amount of Any Award.      Our next case, Fremont Reorganizing Corporation v. Faigin, Case No. B218178 (Second Dist. Div. 3, August 30, 2011 (certified for publication) concerns an in-house attorney who sued his alleged

SLAPP: Sloppy Record Scotches Fees, But Appeal Court Synthesizes SLAPP Wisdom

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP

Fourth District, Div. 2, Underscores That Compliance With Basic Appellate Procedure Is Necessary to Obtain Review of SLAPP Fees Issue.      The next case, Dean Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, et al., Case No. E051217 (4th Dist. Div. 2, 8/18/11) (certified for publication), involves a complaint alleging causes of action deriving from purported racial

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Substantiation of Fees: $71,500 Attorney’s Fees Award Sustained Against Many Procedural Challenges

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  SLAPP Appeal Did Not Stay Fee Motion and Block Billing Challenge Rejected.      In Mangine v. Steier, Case Nos. B219022/B222822 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPPed and lost a summary adjudication of a landlord-tenant dispute in which the lower court granted attorney’s fees of $71,500 to present landlord under

Family Law/SLAPP: Fourth District, Division 3 Give Us a Two-Fer

Cases: Family Law, Cases: SLAPP

  Family Code Section 271 Sanctioning Authority Justified $3,000 Fee Award Against Ex-Wife.      Acting Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, affirmed a $3,000 award against ex-wife based on Family Code section 271. That section imposes a “minimum level of professionalism and cooperation” to effectuate settlement in the family law area and authorizes

SLAPP: Texas Recently Enacts SLAPP Statute Similar to California’s Statute, With Similar Fee Shifting Provisions

Cases: SLAPP, Legislation

  U.S. Congress and North Carolina Also Considering SLAPP Legislation.      We have posted frequently on California’s anti-SLAPP statute and its fee-shifting provisions.       We can now report that, according to a June 20, 2011 post on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press News website, Texas is the 27th state, along with the District

Scroll to Top