Cases: SLAPP

Civil Rights/Allocation: Nonfrivolous Federal Civil Right Claim Fees Awarded As Part Of Anti-SLAPP Fee Recovery Would Not Withstand Appellate Scrutiny

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: SLAPP

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 […]

SLAPP: California And Oregon Anti-SLAPP Fee Recovery Is Substantive Under Erie

Cases: SLAPP

  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

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Fees Decisions In 2010–Part 1 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Equity, Cases: Probate, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 998, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     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

Judgment Enforcement: Denial Of Fee Recovery For Post-Judgment Efforts, Including Fraudulent Conveyance Action Producing Return Of Property, Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: SLAPP

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

SLAPP: $200,000 Fees/Costs Awarded To Swedish Filmmakers And Against Dole Arising From Dismissed Defamation Counterclaim Involving “Bananas!”

Cases: SLAPP

  $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

SLAPP: Attorney’s Fees Awards Under SLAPP And Harassment Injunction Statute Affirmed

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Homeowner’s Associations And SLAPP: Judgment And Fee Awards Correctly Awarded Against Homeowner Trustee As An Individual

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP

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

SLAPP: Second District, Division 4 Joins Division 1 On Finding No Authorization For An Award Of SLAPP Fees Against Losing Plaintiff’s Counsel

Cases: SLAPP

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

Scroll to Top