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October 2, 2023, we posted on Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Case No. B312337 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 20, 2023) (published), unpublished at the time but […]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 In Berry v. Pope Valley Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. A165592 (1st Dist., Div 3 Oct. 10, 2023) (unpublished), defendant District SLAPPed plaintiff’s amended complaint, while another defendant SLAPPed all but one whistleblower claim.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 In Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Case No. B312337 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 29, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a suit based primarily on the alleged shoddiness of a CSU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 June 26, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where a prevailing defendant in an anti-SLAPP proceeding successfully defended the result on appeal, leading to the
Defendant Originally Requested $37,400, But Plaintiff Appealed The Reduced Fee Award Anyway. Plaintiff in Capital Wholesale LLC v. Buehring, Case No. C095879 (3d Dist. June 21, 2023) (unpublished) lost a SLAPP motion which resulted in his complaint being stricken and with the lower court awarding the prevailing defendant $23,728 in attorney’s fees out of
Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor’s Failure To Move To Tax Costs Had Consequences. On May 30, 2023, we posted on Briggs v. Elliott, Case No. D080283 when it was unpublished (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 26, 2023 unpublished, certified for publication on June 16, 2023). We can now report that the opinion has been published, dealing with
This Updates Our Prior May 28, 2021 Post On The Case At The Trial Level. On May 28, 2021, we did a post on a trial court fee award in a defamation action brought by Joe E. Collins III against Maxine Waters, congressional seat opponents in the past, where a Los Angeles County Superior
Answer: Partially Prevailing Defendant Gets Trial and Appellate Fees For the SLAPP Grants, But No Fees For Work on SLAPP Denials. As our post captions above indicate, Peterson v. Harris, Case No. B315356 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 2, 2023) (unpublished) indicates the attorney’s fees entitlement remedy available to a partially prevailing SLAPP defendant
SLAPP-ed Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Liable For Post-judgment Enforcement Costs Because He Did Not Move To Tax A Post-judgment Enforcement Costs Memo, A Procedural Deadline Which Was Independent Of Any Subsequent Satisfaction Of Judgment Requests. In Briggs v. Elliott, Case No. D080283 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 26, 2023) (unpublished), two political rivals were involved in
Reversal Of The Rest Required A Remand To Eliminate Fees Which Were Inappropriately Awarded For Reversed SLAPP Denial Grant. Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Chuang, Case No. C095258 (3d Dist. May 15, 2023) (unpublished) shows what happens when $30,555 in attorney’s fees are awarded to a cross-defendant on a SLAPP motion, but there is
