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 Apr. 8, 2009) (unpublished).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 $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
Result Occurs in Unpublished Opinion by Fourth District, Division 2 POOF!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 A trial court in Levy v. Pearson, Case No. E044934 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 3, 2009) (unpublished) granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion (which carries a mandatory award of fees in such a situation) and later awarded defendant $13,965 in
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 Birkner v. Lam, Case No. 121981 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2009) (unpublished) was
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)
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
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
Two Second District Decisions, One Sixth District Decision Are Discussed. Under our category “SLAPP,” we have reviewed decisions granting and denying fee requests to successful winners in anti-SLAPP motions. Here are three recent ones to add to the database: Dodson v. Irving Pomerantz & Associates, Case No. B195289 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 11,
First District, Division 5 Lets Stand $30,000 in Total SLAPP Fee Awards. A successful defendant in a SLAPP motion is entitled to recover mandatory fees of a reasonable nature from the losing plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 425.16(c).) This fee-shifting provision stung a losing plaintiff to the tune of almost $30,000 in total fees
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Does Require Better Fee Allocation through a Separate Motion. One of the nice things about blogging is that we do get interactive input from a variety of individuals. Bill Leys, The Deck Expert, who has a blog at Waterproofdeckcoatingadvice.com, liked one of our recent HOA blogs and, in turn,
