Result Occurs in Unpublished Opinion by Fourth District, Division 2 POOF!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 A trial court in Levy v. Pearson, Case No. E044934 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 3, 2009) (unpublished) granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion (which carries a mandatory award of fees in such a situation) and later awarded defendant $13,965 in […]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 Birkner v. Lam, Case No. 121981 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2009) (unpublished) was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,
First District, Division 4 Rebuffs Challenge to $18,750 Fee Award. The next case trumpets a familiar refrain that we have seen from many appellate decisions: a contention asking for denial or reduction of fees in any award needs to be supported by specific argumentation and specific evidence. Otherwise, the contention may well be found
Second District, Division 7 Finds No Basis to Reduce Fee Award to Anti-SLAPP Victor Any Further. If you are going to challenge the award of a mandatory fee to an anti-SLAPP victor, the message from the next case is to make sure that you have an appealable fee order and that you provide substantiated
