It Happened on September 4, 2009. To our loyal readers, happy upcoming Labor Day. Hope everyone gets some rest and enjoys the break. In our August 22, 2009 post, we reviewed Cabral v. Martins, an unpublished decision by the First District, Division 4 that affirmed a $58,400 fee award to three sets of […]
Second District, Division 5 Agrees With Lower Court that SLAPP Motion Was “Not a Close Call.” In our category “SLAPP,” we have reviewed the statutory provision that mandates an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant on a SLAPP motion in many, many cases. Less common, we have reviewed a few cases—some
Next Slate of SLAPP Decisions Illustrates the Principle. Our category “SLAPP” will certainly give you readers a wealth of information on when SLAPP winners are happy or sad. Winning defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees for winning these motions, although the reasonableness caveat and need to sustain the result on
That is the Good News … the Bad News is that They Have to Pay Plaintiff Directly. In our August 15, 2009 post, we looked at a companion case to the next one, where defendants lost an appeal of an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs when defendants were found to have brought
Fourth District, Division Two Sustains Awards in Favor of Plaintiff Defeating Frivolous Motion. In our category “SLAPP,” we have examined many cases where attorney’s fees have been awarded to defendants prevailing on anti-SLAPP motions. However, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) also provides that a defendant losing an anti-SLAPP motion can suffer an adverse
Hefty SLAPP Fees Awarded to Victorious Cross-Defendant in Trade Secret Case. In our June 27, 2009 post, we reviewed the previously unpublished decision by the Fourth District, Division 3 in Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea. This decision was certified for publication on July 21, 2009. Raining Data affirmed a $112,353.35 attorney’s fees award
First District, Division 5 So Holds in City of Pleasanton Referendum Dispute. We have to say that defendant victors—even partial victors—are usually awarded some amount of fees for winning anti-SLAPP motions, which carry a mandatory fee-shifting bias for defendant winners. (If you don’t believe this, see our category “SLAPP.”) The next case is but
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Abuse of Discretion. In Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, Case No. G040902 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion against a cross-defendant arising from a trade secret misappropriation dispute, with the trial court awarding $112, 353.75 to cross-defendant under Code of Civil
Second District, Division Eight Finds No Trope Prohibition on Fee Recovery. Witte v. Kaufman, 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1211 (2006) establishes that the law firm representing itself, with no attorney-client relationship, is not entitled to attorney’s fees for winning a SLAPP motion. This rule is based upon the holding in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th
Second District Issues Two Opinions With Very Different Lessons. Bier v. Grodsky & Olecki, Case No. B204887 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 4, 2009) (Unpublished) In this one, plaintiff lost an anti-SLAPP motion striking numerous causes of action based on the absolute litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47 (a very potent basis for
