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 In LaMunyon v. Reid & Hellyer, APC, Case No E052887 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 9, 2011) (unpublished), the appellate court sustained a mandatory fee award to the defense of $37,000 (broken down $17,000 for trial court services and $20,000 for successful prior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 In Rolla v. Speidel, Case No. D05783 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2011) (unpublished), the original trial judge granted a peremptory challenge and the case was assigned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 In Mazzaferri v. Mazzaferro, Case No. A131076 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 9, 2011) (unpublished), defendants were sanctioned for filing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 McCoy v. Walczak, Case No. A129671 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 21, 2011) (unpublished) involved a situation where a trial court denied a timely filed fee motion by a winning SLAPP defendant in a defamation suit “without prejudice,” but later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
Fee Order Reversed By Lower Court When Separate Fee Motion Procedure Used. Although the appellate court aptly described the overall cause as a “trial court’s resolution of a procedural morass” under the anti-SLAPP statute, JP Builders, Inc. v. Leebove, Case No. A130270 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 7, 2011) (unpublished) does confirm the
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.
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
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
