Cases: SLAPP – Page 39 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Attorney’s Fees In the News … Citizens Reap Public Interest Award, While Homeowner May Have To Pay FEHA Department Fees

May 3, 2009

Citizens Group Awarded Over $175,000 in Fees For Successful Attack of Santa Barbara Proposed Housing Project. Citizens Planning Association (CPA) were awarded over $175,000 in attorney’s fees ($117,228 lodestar, based on four attorneys charging $350 an hour, plus a $60,000 multiplier add-on) for successfully attacking the City of Santa Barbara’s environmental analysis of the […]

SLAPP and Fee Substantiation: Itemized Billing Statements/Evidence About Reasonableness Of Hourly Rate And Hours Expended Not Required In Fee Proceedings

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

April 25, 2009

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sufficient Substantiation in Attorney Declaration Attesting to Actual Number of Hours Worked and Attorney’s Billing Rate. Many practitioners might think that itemized billing statements and evidence on reasonableness of rates/hours expended are essentials in a fee petition proceeding. Although highly advisable, the next case reinforces that such detailed substantiation

SLAPP Two-Fer: Fees Go POOF! Because No Amended Complaint On File And HOA Director Stung With Fees After Losing SLAPP Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP

April 22, 2009

Second District, Division 7 Issues Two Unpublished Opinions on SLAPP. In our category “SLAPP,” we have explored cases where defendants have been victorious in winning mandatory attorney’s fees awards after prevailing in anti-SLAPP motions. The statutory basis for such fee entitlement is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Division 7 of the Second District

Civil Code Section 1717 And Anti-SLAPP: Fee Awards Affirmed Where Merits Determinations Were Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: SLAPP

April 8, 2009

Dalis v. Reinhard, Case No. H031637 (6th Dist. Apr. 8, 2009) (unpublished). In this one, defendant was awarded $353,607.96 in attorney’s fees when he prevailed on 12 of 13 causes of action in an action brought by a Trust upon a nonrecourse promissory note with a fees clause. Defendant did prevail, and the merits

Attorney’s Fee Awards In the News—One Entertainment Case Whooper and Two Smaller Ones

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: SLAPP, Off Topics

April 4, 2009

Attorney’s Fee Awards In the News—One Entertainment Case Whooper and Two Smaller Ones $14 Million Fee Award – Entertainment Dispute. Los Angeles County Superior Court produced one of the largest fee awards we know of (with a recent article on the award suggesting it is the biggest ever)–$14 million. Well-known author Clive Cussler

POOF!: Reversal of Anti-SLAPP Grant Mean Fee Award Goes Away

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

April 3, 2009

Result Occurs in Unpublished Opinion by Fourth District, Division 2 POOF! strikes again. A trial court in Levy v. Pearson, Case No. E044934 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 3, 2009) (unpublished) granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion (which carries a mandatory award of fees in such a situation) and later awarded defendant $13,965 in

Eureka!: Upheld Anti-SLAPP Motion Means Upheld Fee Award

Cases: SLAPP

March 31, 2009

Fee Award Gets Affirmed Automatically If No Other Challenge Is Made Apart From Rejected Underlying Merits Arguments. Eureka! is likely the cry when a merits judgment is affirmed and no challenge is otherwise made to a fee award. Birkner v. Lam, Case No. 121981 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2009) (unpublished) was

SLAPP: Cross-Defendant In Massage Room Dispute Recovers $48,692 In Fees And Costs In Winning An Anti-SLAPP Motion

Cases: SLAPP

March 25, 2009

First District, Division 5 Also Awards 1.2 Multiplier For Anti-SLAPP Lodestar Motion Work. The next case illustrates that, in the right situation, a trial court will even award a multiplier on anti-SLAPP motion work performed by a successful cross-defendant. In Ortega v. Morales, Case No. A120684 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 25, 2009)

SLAPP: Litigant Successfully Vacating Sister State Judgment Denied A Fee Award Under the Anti-SLAPP Scheme

Cases: SLAPP

March 24, 2009

Second District, Division 8 Rebuffs Defense Effort to Obtain $49,000 Anti-SLAPP Fee Recovery. A putative judgment debtor in a sister state judgment proceeding successfully moved to vacate entry of a $56,768 Washington sanctions judgment. Judgment debtor also moved to SLAPP the judgment entry, with the lower court not mentioning SLAPP when vacating the motion

Post-Judgment Enforcement and Fraudulent Conveyance: Fees Are Awardable Based On Jury Determination That Parties Conspired/Aided and Abetted In Efforts To Avoid Enforcement of Judgment Against Predecessor

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

March 21, 2009

Second District, Division 7 Also Decides That Alter Ego Should Have Been Added As a Defendant For Purposes of Exposure to Anti-SLAPP Fees. The next case shows that appellate courts will reinstate fee exposure where they are convinced that a party was part and parcel of a scheme to evade a judgment or was