Third District Gives Direct Collateral Estoppel Impact to Prior Ruling in Convoluted Real Estate Option Dispute. Here is an interesting decision where the fee ruling in a prior SLAPP proceeding was given direct estoppel effect in a subsequent action. This is how it panned out. South Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners […]
SLAPP Defendant/Appellant Gets Smacked With Attorney’s Fees Twice Our next case, City of Alhambra v. D’Ausilio, B220136 (2nd Dist. Div. 2 3/8/11) (unpublished), pitted Burke, Williams & Sorensen, and its client, the City of Alhambra, against The Petersen Law Firm, and its client, Robert D’Ausilio. This lawsuit between Mr. D’Ausilio, a former employee
One Winning Plaintiff Not Entitled To Fees When Defense SLAPP Motion Found to Have Partial Merit. The SLAPP statute does allow a plaintiff successfully resisting a SLAPP to recover fees if plaintiff can meet the CCP § 128.5 standards for sanctions–the motion was “totally and completely” without merit. Big fees were awarded to
Numerous Challenges Rebuffed on Review. Defendants, after SLAPPing plaintiffs’ Complaint (even though plaintiffs noticed a preliminary injunction hearing for the same day as the SLAPP motions), moved to recover attorney’s fees/other expenses totaling $115,601.38 ($105,237.52 of which comprised fees). Over opposition, the lower court awarded defendants $96,404.70 (with the $90,000 bulk being fees). Plaintiff
One of the Rare Cases Where Fees Assessed Against the Defense. Normally, when reporting on SLAPP fee awards, we are talking about awards to defendants under the mandatory fee-shifting statute in CCP § 425.16(c)(1). However, the ending part of that provision also allows a court to award mandatory fees to a plaintiff if
Second District, Division 1 Dismisses a Plethora of Challenges. In Erwin v. Maxwell, Case No. B217200 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff’s malicious prosecution action against her opponent and opponent’s attorney was SLAPPed, with the lower court eventually awarding defense counsel a total of $71,006.00 in attorney’s fees and costs
First District, Division 5 Finds Cross-Complaint Not Properly SLAPPed Because It Did Not Arise From Free Speech or Petitioning Activity. For those of you that follow our blog, you know we have the POOF! principle. This principle manifests itself when there is a merits reversal of a substantive order that gave rise to
Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands To Craft Fee Recovery Only for anti-SLAPP Work. In Fox v. Vice, No. 10-114 (U.S. Sup. Ct., cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 505 [Nov. 1, 2010]), the United States Supreme Court will consider whether attorney’s fees can be awarded for intertwined work when the civil rights claims are determined
Case Arises Out of Settlement Reached With Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean. Seems like lots of controversy as well as lawsuits arise out of beauty queen pageants. Also seems like celebrity lawsuits result in a lot of SLAPP motions. The next “in the news” item is no exception. As reported by a
Ninth Circuit Grants Fee Award To Winning Defendant For Fees On Appeal. This next case takes us all back to law school, with the substantive/procedural distinction of import arising from the Erie doctrine. In Northon v. Rule, Case No. 07-35319 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2011) (for publication), defendants won an anti-SLAPP motion
