Failure to Comply with CRC 3.1702’s Deadline Was Dispositive. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702 requires that a motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of a trial court judgment must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal, which […]
Fourth District, Division Three Affirms Case Involving Steve Rocco, But Extraneous Circumstances Confirm the Necessity for an Undertaking on Appeal. In our June 23, 2008 post, we reviewed Dowling v. Zimmerman, 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1426-1434 (2001), a decision that held an adverse anti-SLAPP fee award must be bonded to prevent execution
However, Prevailing Party’s Anti-SLAPP Win Is Overturned, With a Resulting Reversal of the Fee Award. A notary was named in a conspiracy-charging civil lawsuit brought by a disgruntled plaintiff arising out of a loan he made to others on a series of real estate transactions. Plaintiff charged that the notary failed
Affirmance of Lower Court’s Order Dictated Under Abuse of Discretion Review Standard. Cross-complainants lost two anti-SLAPP motions directed against their malicious prosecution complaints. As we have seen before, fee awards of some nature are mandatory to prevailing defendants in these situations under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). See Ketchum v.
Fourth District, Division Three Overturns Denial and Analyzes anti-SLAPP Fee Issues in the Process. In the following case, we have an entertaining decision penned by Presiding Justice Sills on behalf of a Fourth District, Division Three unanimous panel. However, it also has a very syllogistic-like analysis of issues frequently encountered in
Fourth District, Division Three Affirm Lower Court Determination That Requested Fees Were Excessive–Involving Overstaffing, Vague Block Billing, and Billing for Anti-SLAPP Motion Tasks. Prevailing defendants in anti-SLAPP proceedings are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c). However, the prevailing defendant can only recover for anti-SLAPP activities, not
Melbostad Offers Crucial Tips on Correctly Appealing anti-SLAPP Order Granting Fees to a Prevailing Defendant. On August 4, 2008, the First District, Division Four—on its own motion—has decided to publish Melbostad v. Fisher, Case No. A119514 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 23, 2008). Actually, we believe that this was a decision
First District Affirms Fee Award to Homeowners’ Association, Association President, and Sleepless Resident Prevailing on an anti-SLAPP Motion. Unless you are an Iron Man or a fortunate individual with a high metabolism, sleep is a precious commodity. Loss of sleep can definitely impede quality of life for many people. Sometimes, as
First District Unpublished Decision So Counsels, Dismissing Appeal Where Anti-SLAPP Plaintiff Failed to Timely Appeal from Fee Recovery Order. Melbostad v. Fisher, Case No. A119514 (1st Dis., Div. 4 July 23, 2008) (unpublished) is must reading for litigants and practitioners with respect to what orders should be appealed from in order
Second District Affirms Trial Court’s Decision to Decline Awarding Fees to a Prevailing Anti-SLAPP Plaintiff. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c), a prevailing anti-SLAPP defendant is entitled to mandatory fee recovery for winning a special motion to strike. However, the same subsection provides that a prevailing anti-SLAPP plaintiff only obtains
