Cases: SLAPP – Page 34 – Cal Attorneys Fees

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

November 29, 2010

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

November 22, 2010

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 In San Diego Country Estates Assn., Inc. v. Ward, Case No. D055182 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished), an HOA and homeowner (a trustee of his revocable inter vivos trust) got embroiled in a retaining wall construction dispute in which trustee was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

November 13, 2010

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

SLAPP/Fee Substantiation: Attorney’s Fees To Winning Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

November 4, 2010

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 G041929/G042094 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 3, 2010) (unpublished), defendants SLAPPed 9 out of 10 claims and were awarded attorney’s fees against losing plaintiff.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

SLAPP: $20,728.12 Fee Award Sustained In Favor Of Defendants Hiring Lawyer On Contingency Basis

Cases: SLAPP

October 30, 2010

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 In Rapp v. Geagan, Case No. A126121 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 29, 2010) (unpublished), defendants prevailed on a SLAPP motion.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

SLAPP: Published Appellate Decision Finally Holds That Attorneys Cannot Be Hit With Adverse Fee Awards By SLAPP Victors

Cases: SLAPP

October 24, 2010

Second District, Division 1 So Holds, After Split in Opinion By Two Unpublished Cases. In our June 19, 2008 post, we discussed Foster v. Warner, 2008 WL 2445106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), which held that the anti-SLAPP mandatory fee shifting provision (CCP § 425.16(c)(1), mandatory as to a prevailing defendant) does not authorize an

SLAPP: Trope Limitation Did Not Preclude Award Of Fees To California Attorney General For Prevailing On SLAPP Motion Against Suing Doctor When Two Of The AG Attorneys (Also Sued) Aided Lead Counsel Work for AG And Other Co-Defendants

Cases: SLAPP

October 23, 2010

First District, Division 2 So Rules in Lengthy Unpublished Decision. Soderling v. Office of the California Attorney General, Case Nos. A124196/A124931 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 22, 2010) (unpublished) concerned an appeal by a doctor suing to overturn the trial court’s partial grant of an anti-SLAPP motion against the California Attorney General (AG) as

SLAPP: Post-Appeal Prevailing Party Adequately Preserved Fee Recovery By Filing A Costs Memorandum

Cases: SLAPP

October 20, 2010

Fourth District, Division 3 Disagrees that A Noticed Motion for Fees Was the Exclusive Method for Fee Recovery. Here is a SLAPP fee procedural issue that we believe is certain to reoccur in some future cases where SLAPP defendants prevail on a SLAPP motion. Hong v. Regents of the University of California,

SLAPP: SLAPP Fee Award Properly Reviewed Even Though Entire Case Not To Judgment

Cases: SLAPP

October 18, 2010

Fourth District, Division 3 Disagrees with Dicta in Doe v. Luster. You know that this one was going to be interesting when Justice Moore, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of the Fourth District, Division Three, wrote: “This is one of the weakest anti-SLAPP motions this court has reviewed in some time, which is

Trio Of Cases: Class Action Fee Distribution, Anti-SLAPP Fees To State Bar, And Reach Of Arbitrator Disclosures Highlighted California Appellate Court Thinking

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: SLAPP

October 13, 2010

Declaratory Relief Action Denial Reversed re Class Action Fee Distribution. In Carder v. Patten, Faith & Sandford, Case No. B221940 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 12, 2010) (certified for publication), the appellate court reversed judgment entered against a plaintiff class action lawyer in a declaratory relief action he brought against other class action co-counsel