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 […]
Above: Wrapping It Up. As we wish all readers the happiest of Holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts or the Ninth Circuit. This list is not meant to slight other important decisions in certain areas, but these are the ones that “rose to the top” from
Defendant Was In Pro Per, So No Fee; CCP § 128.5 Did Not Provide Basis. In Skerston v. Newman, Case No. G043164 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2010) (unpublished), the good news for an in pro per defendant is that he won a SLAPP motion. The bad news is that in pro per
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds No “Prevailing Party” Standard Applies in Post-Judgment Collection Efforts With Respect to Fee Recovery. In this category, we have examined several decisions dealing with statutes that allow for fee recovery, if certain conditions are met (with a judgment having to provide for fee recovery), under Code of Civil Procedure
$50,000 Of Requested Fees/Costs Not Awarded. Recently, Los Angeles County Superior Court Ralph Dau granted some Swedish filmmaker’s anti-SLAPP motion against Dole arising from Dole’s dismissal of a defamation counterclaim relating to the filmmaker’s documentary “Bananas!” Then, the Swedish filmmakers requested fees/costs of about $250,000 under the mandatory anti-SLAPP fee shifting statute that
Challenging Plaintiff Did Not Show Specificity in Padding, Duplication, or Unrelatedness Arguments To Support Fee Reduction. To our dear readers after Thanksgiving, here is a case with excellent reminders about steps you should take when challenging lower court fee awards. Make sure that you make specific challenges, not just arguments, supported with declarations from
Fourth District, Division 1 Sees No Error in Individual Assessment. In San Diego Country Estates Assn., Inc. v. Ward, Case No. D055182 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished), an HOA and homeowner (a trustee of his revocable inter vivos trust) got embroiled in a retaining wall construction dispute in which trustee was
Division 4 Follows Moore v. Kaufman. In our October 24, 2010 post, we examined Moore v. Kaufman, 2010 Cal.App. LEXIS 1813, a Second District, Division 1 decision where a SLAPP fee award against losing plaintiff’s counsel was overturned. The basis was that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) did not allow for such an
Billing Records Are Not Required Substantiation in a Fee Petition. In U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance Inc. v. McFetters, Case Nos. G041929/G042094 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 3, 2010) (unpublished), defendants SLAPPed 9 out of 10 claims and were awarded attorney’s fees against losing plaintiff. The defense substantiated the fees by submitting attorney declarations describing
Contingency Fee Arrangement Did Lead to a Fee Multiplier in SLAPP Award. In Rapp v. Geagan, Case No. A126121 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 29, 2010) (unpublished), defendants prevailed on a SLAPP motion. The wrinkle is that they were represented by a defense attorney hired on a contingency fee basis, with the understanding he
