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
Noerr-Pennington Challenge Once Again Rebuked in SLAPP Fee Area. In The Petersen Law Firm v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B220030 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 13, 2011) (unpublished), The Petersen Law Firm was SLAPPed in state court for bringing an unsuccessful mandate petition to force compliance with certain police department statutory
Gretchen Rossi Hit With Almost $41,000 in Fees for SLAPPed Defamation Suit Against Ex-Boy Friend. We frequently have blogged on the SLAPP fee-shifting statute, which requires a mandatory imposition of reasonable attorney’s fees to a defendant winner. Well, even celebrities are not beyond its reach. “Real Housewives of O.C.” star Gretchen Rossi
$125,491.81 Fee Award Against Plaintiff Sustained on Appeal. Plaintiff, after being hit with an adverse $125,491.81 fee award after losing a SLAPP motion, challenged the fee award in Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223345 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2011) (unpublished). Her challenge was that the award was unconstitutional
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Heather McCloseky, Case No. B223237 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 22, 2011) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion below and also garnered a $14,327 fee award.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
