Rare SLAPP Fee Award Against Defendant Affirmed And Appellate Fees Assessed For Frivolous Appeal. On March 13, 2011, we did a post on City of Alhambra v. D’Ausilio, where a defendant losing a SLAPP motion was hit with attorney’s fees for a frivolous motion as well as appellate fees for bringing a frivolous […]
Raise the Argument Before the Trial Court! SLAPP has a mandatory fee-shifting provision that favors successful defendants. In Vafi v. Heather McCloseky, Case No. B223237 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 22, 2011) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion below and also garnered a $14,327 fee award. Plaintiff
Trial Court Did Not Have to Gauge SLAPP Fees Based on Fees Awarded to Plaintiff in Prior Underlying Suit Claimed to Have Been Maliciously Prosecuted. Here is an interesting one for our “SLAPP” category, remembering that attorney’s fees are mandatory for defendants winning anti-SLAPP motions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425(c)(1).) It also reinforces
Abuse of Discretion of Standard Will Yield Where Record Shows What Lower Court Really Did. Although we doubt that it will make that much difference on remand, Kaye v. Van Putten, Case Nos. F058513/F059269 (5th Dist. Mar. 21, 2011) (unpublished) demonstrates that a fee award stands to be reversed and remanded where a lower
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 Div. 2 3/8/11) (unpublished), pitted Burke, Williams & Sorensen, and its client, the City of Alhambra, against The Petersen Law Firm, and its client, Robert D’Ausilio.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
