Cases: SLAPP

Prevailing Anti-SLAPP Plaintiff Does Not Obtain Fee Recovery From Losing Defendant Unless the Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Frivolous Or Intended Solely to Cause Unnecessary Delay

Cases: SLAPP

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 […]

Anti-Slapp Victor Awarded Attorney’s Fees After Appellate Court Reversal

Cases: SLAPP

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

SUCCESSFUL ANTI-SLAPP DEFENDANT CANNOT RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR PREVAILING FROM “SLAPPED” PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District So Holds In Unpublished Decision and Modifies Judgment So That Attorney Is Not Held Liable for Anti-SLAPP Fees.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

HOMEOWNER WINS ANTI-SLAPP ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD BECAUSE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION BROUGHT FRIVOLOUS MOTION AGAINST HER CLAIMS

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

In PRO PER APPELLANT LOSES CHALLENGES TO APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEE AWARD FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL OF AN ANTI-SLAPP ORDER

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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

UNSUPPORTED CHALLENGE OF “EXCESSIVENESS” OR “DUPLICATIVE WORK” BY APPELLANT CHALLENGING FEE AWARDS REJECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Experts, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

FIRST DISTRICT HOLDS IT IMPROPER TO APPLY “A MECHANICAL FORMULA” TO REDUCE AN AWARD OF ANTI-SLAPP ATTORNEY’S FEES TO A SUCCESSFUL PARTY

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Scroll to Top