Fourth District, Division Two Adopts Discretionary Factor Test Set Forth In Mann. Patent litigation, which is likely a battle for well-heeled litigants, frequently spawns satellite litigation after someone prevails in federal court. That is exactly what happened in the next case, where the predominant victor then sued for abuse of process […]
Sixth District Overturns Fee Award Because A Subpoena Request Is Not Within the Ambit of the Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Procedure. Plaintiff, a New York resident, obtained an Ohio state court order with subpoena power to obtain information from Google about anonymous web blogs that were allegedly defaming plaintiff. After Google
Third District Finds That Victor, On Remand, Adequately Justified Fee Recovery Based on Work of Independently Retained Attorney. The anti-SLAPP procedure allows prevailing defendants a mandatory award of attorney’s fees. Code Civ. Proc., sec. 425.16(c). The next case is a remand situation from a prior appellate reversal, showing that a fee
Fourth District, Division One Answers “Yes” in Dowling v. Zimmerman. A couple of days ago, Susan Medwied, a good friend and terrific Orange County collections attorney, called and asked Mike Hensley whether a SLAPP fee order had to be bonded during an appeal by the losing party (the plaintiff). Mike
First District So Holds In Unpublished Decision and Modifies Judgment So That Attorney Is Not Held Liable for Anti-SLAPP Fees. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs. This has been interpreted to mean the losing plaintiff
Second District Affirms Fee Award and Clarifies That Frivolousness Findings Do Not Have to be Prolix in Nature. If a plaintiff defeats an anti-SLAPP motion determined to be frivolous, the plaintiff must be awarded attorneys under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).) Frivolousness requires a finding that the anti-SLAPP
Fourth District, Division 3 Sanctions Losing In Pro Per Plaintiff By Affirming $40,000 Attorney’s Fees Award. Previously, an in pro per litigant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a fraudulent transfer complaint by an opponent. (See Code Civ. Proc., §425.16 [anti-SLAPP statute].) In pro per lost the motion, and the trial
Second District Affirms Award of Anti-SLAPP Fees to Defendant Where Fee Attacks Were Not Supported by Competent Evidence. When opposing a fee motion, a litigant should support challenges with competent evidence. Such evidence can take the form of an expert witness or a particularized challenge to
Appellate Court Found That Trial Judge Used Incorrect Legal Standard When Reducing a Fee Award by Two-Thirds. A defendant who brings a successful anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney’s fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 425.16(c); Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131 (2001).) Generally, appellate
