Client’s SLAPP Motion Was Properly Denied. In Fink & Associates v. Finato, Case No. B325604 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 19, 2024) (unpublished), a lower court denied former client’s attempt to SLAPP former attorney’s cross-claims to recover a contingency fee after a settlement was reached. The 2/1 DCA affirmed because the nonpayment of monies […]
No Final Judgment Was Entered, And Collateral Order Doctrine Did Not Apply Because The Fee Order Did Not Order Payment Of Money By Partially Prevailing Cross-Defendant. Cross-defendant in Delis v. Thorn, Case No. F084879 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished) successfully SLAPP-ed 4 out of 5 cross-claims, moved for mandatory SLAPP fees, and was
Challenges Were To Lower Court’s Discretionary Calls, With The 25% Reduction Below Showing Discretion Was Exercised. Smith v. Entrepreneur Media, Inc., Case No. G060839 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 18, 2023) (unpublished), authored by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, is another illustration as to why challenges to the amount of attorney’s fees awarded are on
However, Lower Court Had To Determine If SLAPP Motion Had Merits, Which It Did. In Mendez v. Flores, Case No. C095501 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiffs dismissed their complaint after the defense moved to SLAPP it. The lower court awarded the defense $19,608 in SLAPP fees after determining it had jurisdiction to
It Did Not Matter, Because SLAPP Denial Was Affirmed On Appeal. Freeman v. LMA & SAI 1433 Wilshire LLC, Case No. B325212 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 9, 2023) (unpublished) goes to show you that you may hurdle procedural appealability obstacles, only to have the merits affirmed anyway. In this one, the procedural
Awarding Only 26% Of The Fee “Ask” Showed That Lack Of Total Success Was Credited. In Fitzgibbons v. Chaudhuri, Case No. E077070 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 3, 2023) (unpublished), defendant tried to SLAPP a plaintiff’s complaint in entirety, but only obtained a grant to strike certain paragraphs and lines in the complaint. The
Appellate Court Found That The Entire SLAPP Motion Should Be Granted And The Defense Awarded Fees, Not Having To Resolve The Split Between Coltrain and Liu. On October 2, 2023, we posted on Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Case No. B312337 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 20, 2023) (published), unpublished at the time but
Parsing Out Unsuccessful Work And Assessing Satisfaction Of Litigation Objectives Had To Be Considered On Remand. In Berry v. Pope Valley Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. A165592 (1st Dist., Div 3 Oct. 10, 2023) (unpublished), defendant District SLAPPed plaintiff’s amended complaint, while another defendant SLAPPed all but one whistleblower claim. The defendants respectively
Result Was That The Total Fee Request Of The Defense Should Have Been Awarded, Not The Scaled Down Order For 80% Of The Request. In Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Case No. B312337 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 29, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a suit based primarily on the alleged shoddiness of a CSU
Result Was An Award Of $19,651 In Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Defendant For Defending SLAPP Grant On Appeal. Spielbauer Law Office v. Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. H049662 (6th Dist. June 26, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where a prevailing defendant in an anti-SLAPP proceeding successfully defended the result on appeal, leading to the
