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 […]
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
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 B219022/B222822 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPPed and lost a summary adjudication of a landlord-tenant dispute in which the lower court granted attorney’s fees of $71,500 to present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 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
Second District, Division 3 Directs Recalculation of SLAPP Fee Award. In Fuchs v. Smith, Case No. B222470 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 5, 2011) (unpublished), defendants SLAPPed plaintiff’s malicious prosecution suit and were awarded all of their fees reasonably incurrred in the action (not merely SLAPP related fees), although the lower court did
Yelp!/Youch!: Plastic Surgeon Hit With $20,000 in SLAPP and $2,000 in Private Attorney General Fee Awards. As reported by Gary Klien in a June 24, 2011 post carried in MercuryNews.com, a Marin County cosmetic surgeon (Ms. Kimberly Henry of Greenbrae) was assessed $20,000 in attorney’s fees for losing a SLAPP motion brought by
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
Use of Associate For Appellate Work Was Tantamount to “Lost Opportunity Costs” Not Allowable under Trope. We have done numerous posts on the Trope limitation which prevents in pro per attorneys representing themselves from obtaining attorney’s fees recovery under various fee-shifting statutes or contractual clauses. Now, Justice Mosk of the Second District, Division
Second District, Division 1 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Awarding Reduced Fees to Winning Defendants. Here is a case that demonstrates that the mandatory fee awards awardable to defendants under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1) are hinged on reasonable fees, with trial courts not having to rubberstamp fee requests that are too
$28,712.50 Fee/Costs Award Was the Victim in This One. Defendants probably felt pretty good after they SLAPPed plaintiff’s suit and won fees/cost of $28,712.50 under the SLAPP mandatory fee-shifting statute. The feeling was somewhat short lived, however. The appellate court in Gonzales v. Gonzales Foundation, Case Nos. A123857/124346 (1st Dist., Div. 3
