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 On May 30, 2023, we posted on Briggs v. Elliott, Case No. D080283 when it was unpublished (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 26, 2023 unpublished, certified for publication on June 16, 2023).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 As our post captions above indicate, Peterson v. Harris, Case No. B315356 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 2, 2023) (unpublished) indicates the attorney’s fees entitlement remedy available to a partially prevailing SLAPP defendant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 In Briggs v. Elliott, Case No. D080283 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 26, 2023) (unpublished), two political rivals were involved in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 May 15, 2023) (unpublished) shows what happens when $30,555 in attorney’s fees are awarded to a cross-defendant on a SLAPP motion, but there is
Defendants Appealing The Entire SLAPP Denial As To All Claims Resulted In The Ruling. Nirschl v. Schiller, Case No. B313105 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2023) (published) involved SLAPP defendants in a case where only portions of their SLAPP motion as to non-defamation claims were denied and deemed to be frivolous in nature—with
$84,150 Civil Harassment Fee Request Reduced By More Than 50%. Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2021) (unpublished) is a case where both a civil harassment fee award and SLAPP denial were in play, with the California Supreme Court on two occasions remanding to the appellate court on
However, Trial Court Had To Determine Whether SLAPP Motions Were Meritorious. Facing disaster, plaintiffs in Ryckman v. Drexler, Case No. B319664 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 28, 2023) (unpublished), voluntarily dismissed their actions in the face of SLAPP motions filed by defendants. The lower court then awarded fees of $29,727.55 to one set of
Amounts Were Significant. In Wu v. Lian Tong, Case Nos. A163131 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2023) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion. We post to show that the defense mandatory fee awards were significant, $115,577.30 for one defendant and $45,031 for another. Just to show how SLAPP fee awards can
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
