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 In Erwin v. Maxwell, Case No. B217200 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff’s malicious prosecution action against her opponent and opponent’s attorney was SLAPPed, with the lower court eventually awarding defense counsel a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
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 In Skerston v. Newman, Case No. G043164 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2010) (unpublished), the good news for an in pro per defendant is that he won a SLAPP motion.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
