No Fees Under SLAPP or Lanham Act Fee Shifting Provisions. Well, everyone knows about James “Jim” Brown, maybe the best professional football running back of all time. In the next case, Jim Brown dodged fee exposure under the Lanham Act and under California’s SLAPP statute. He brought a false exploitation of image […]
Second District, Division 4 Gives a Nice Redux in this Area. Even though there was no evidence that defense counsel was affiliated with the winning defendants in a SLAPP motion proceeding, the Second District, Division 4—in a short 3-0 unpublished opinion authored by Justice Manella—gave a nice review of the Trope limitation and
Fourth District, Division 2 Acknowledges Possible Split in Opinion on Recoverable of Fees on non-SLAPP Work, But Affirms Based on Deferential Review. Although unpublished, Spiro v. Allen & Kimbell, LLP, Case Nos. E047790 & E048735 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 24, 2010) (unpublished) nevertheless is an interesting case on whether SLAPP fees can be
Fourth District, Division 3 Does Find That Fee “Estimates” For Future Work On Reply Papers/Appearance Adequately Underpins Ultimate Award. Although it has a great discussion of the Flatley exception and the circumstances where the litigation privilege is trumped by more specific statutes, our local Fourth District, Division 3 does have a nice discussion
Second District, Division One Reluctantly Remands Fee Award for Second Look. A good lesson is taught in the next case: SLAPP fees are only awardable for work in the SLAPP proceeding itself, so apportion out unrelated time at the outset of a fee motion to insure that the award is affirmed on appeal.
First District, Division Five Decision is a Law Professor’s Dream on Judgment Enforcement/Acknowledgment Issues. By now you know (if you have followed our blog or will soon know) that defendant winners of SLAPP motions are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. See our category “SLAPP” to see other catalogued decisions on
Watts v. Curry, Case No. B213862 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 17, 2010) (unpublished) The first sentence of this decision told us it was written in the distinctive writing style of Presiding Justice Gilbert: “A series of seemingly petty, yet niggling, acts fueled by anger and frustration precipitated this unfortunate lawsuit.” A
U.S. District Judge Says “Nay” to Untimely Objection, Refusing to Follow Unpublished State Court Decision and Finding “The Horse Relevant to the Objection Left the Barn” Long Ago. Here is an interesting development that Mr. Ed of an erstwhile television series (the proverbial “horse, of course, of course”) would be proud of. It also
Second District, Division 1 Clarifies that Maughan Did Not Establish a 50 Hour Definitive “Upper Limit” for Compensable SLAPP Motion Work. In Stark v. Withrow, Case No. B214957 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 26, 2010) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 1 affirmed a $15,000 fee award (out of a requested $35,382.37) in favor
Remand Also Ordered For Purposes of Awarding Appellate Defense Fees. In Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc., Case No. B214653 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2010) (certified for publication), the appellate court considered the collision of Megan’s Law and the SLAPP statute. Specifically, Megan’s Law has a provision prohibiting use
