Court Of Appeal Stirred Between Trope And PLCM Reasoning On Fee Recovery. Olin v. Grace, Case No. F083969 (5th Dist. Mar. 30, 2023) (unpublished) was a situation where corporate defendants, represented by an individual defendant who was a wholly owned principal, won a SLAPP motion and subsequent fee award of $3,000. The fee award […]
Losing Party’s Expert Declaration Was Deficient, With The Trial Judge Allowed to Bring His/Her Experience When Deciding Reasonableness Of Fees. We have seen many of these challenges before as to reasonableness of attorney’s fees awards. To have potential success, a losing party needs to rely on a competent expert having knowledge in the subject
Appellate Court Sustained Most Of The SLAPP Denial, Except For One Claim, So Case Goes On. In Antonio V. v. Horn, Case no. B307098 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 22, 2023) (unpublished), the lower court denied a SLAPP motion, which was affirmed in major respects except for granting it on one claim. After the
The Request Was $670,510 In Fees And Costs. Phoebe Bridgers, an indie folk music songwriter-singer, was sued for defamation by music producer Chris Nelson in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Earlier, she won a SLAPP motion, which allows for imposition of mandatory reasonable attorney’s fees and costs against the non-prevailing plaintiff. She moved for
However, Certain Costs Were Not Allowed, Incorporating CCP § 1033.5 Restrictions Into SLAPP Costs Recovery. In Jones v. Reekes, Case No. F082866 (5th Dist. Jan. 9, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiffs losing a SLAPP motion challenged the trial court’s award to the defense of $19,900 in fees (including $3,000 for “fees on fees” efforts) and $414.86
Lower Court’s Reduction Of Request For Excessive “Fees On Fees” Upheld In The Process. It is hard to overturn the amount of a mandatory fee award unless it shocks the conscience of the judge or justices reviewing the request for fees. That burden could not be overcome in Koerber v. Project Veritas, Case No.
Plaintiffs Appealed, To No Avail, Even Though The Lower Court Reduced A Larger Request Of $221,510.50 And A Smaller Alternative Request Of $127,498.69. This next case, Elliott v. Tyerman, Case No. B316104 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 22, 2022) (unpublished), illustrates that a litigant who has been hit with a substantially reduced SLAPP fee
$72,798.65 In Fees And $1,053.50 In Costs Were The Sustained Awards, Plus The Appellate Court Directed The Lower Court To Award Plaintiff Appellate Fees On Remand. City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family-Adventures-Rocklin, LLC, Case No. C091172 (3d Dist. Dec. 21, 2022) (published) shows how the narrower SLAPP fee-shifting provision can take a bite, allowing
Appellate Court Sides With One Side In “Irreconcilable Conclusions” On The Appealability Issue. In Ibbetson v. Grant, Case No. G060473 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court was faced with the question of whether an anti-SLAPP fee award was immediately appealable after a prior SLAPP order grant or whether it
$25,795.50 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal. An adequate appellate record is a necessity in modern appellate practice, not to say it did not change from being a necessity long ago. In Beck v. Yozura, Case No. B313689 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 7, 2022) (unpublished), the trial judge awarded $25,795.50 to a prevailing defendant
