We Believe That the Second District Has Blazed the Trail—The Trial Court Must Decide the Merits of the Motion and then Determine if There Is Fee Entitlement. In our category “SLAPP,” we have discussed numerous decisions which have confronted making a mandatory award of attorney’s fees to a defendant prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion. […]
Fourth District, Division One Refuses to Consider the Fee Grant Issue. Cross-complainant failed to beat an anti-SLAPP motion and was ordered to pay successful cross-defendants $3,998 in attorney's fees and $80.00 in other costs. The final judgment granting the anti-SLAPP motion was silent as to both entitlement to or amount of fees
Plaintiff's Appeal of Anti-SLAPP Fee Denial Was Premature. A plaintiff successfully opposing an anti-SLAPP motion may be entitled to attorney's fees if the motion is determined to have been frivolous or brought solely for the purpose of furthering unnecessary delay. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c). In the case discussed below, defendant lost
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
