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 This next case, Elliott v. Tyerman, Case No. B316104 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 22, 2022) (unpublished), illustrates that a litigant who has been hit with a substantially reduced SLAPP fee […]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 In Ibbetson v. Grant, Case No. G060473 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court was faced with the question of whether an anti-SLAPP fee award was immediately appealable after a prior SLAPP order grant or whether it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 In Beck v. Yozura, Case No. B313689 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 7, 2022) (unpublished), the trial judge awarded $25,795.50 to a prevailing defendant
Challenges to The Fee/Costs Order Were Forfeited. Appellate practice is laced with important deadlines and briefing requirements. Plaintiff failed to follow two important ones in Mitchell v. Dawn Wigeri Van Edema, Case No. C094757 (3d Dist. Nov. 1, 2022) (unpublished). First, plaintiff failed to timely appeal the SLAPP merits grant within 60 days after
The Reason Is That Attorney’s Fees Were In Play If The SLAPP Denial Was Reversed, As It Was. Watkins v. D’Orio, Case No. B310902 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 14, 2022) (unpublished) involved a situation where cross-defendant appealed the denial of an anti-SLAPP as to certain cross-claims and, during the pendency of the appeal,
Defendants Had Differing Interests, And Any Duplication Could Be Remedied By A Lodestar Downward Adjustment. In Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC, Case No. A163086 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 24, 2022) (published), a trial judge granted defendant attorney’s fee request after an anti-SLAPP motion win, but the judge denied fees to the two
Opposing Arguments Were Dismissed, Including That A Prior Disciplined Attorney’s Rates Should Be Compromised Where No Causal Connection Demonstrated. SLAPP fees are mandatory to a prevailing defendant, such that a challenge to their reasonableness must have some bite. That bite was missing in Creative Care, Inc. v. McEntyre, Case No. B308643 (2d Dist., Div.
The Record Did Not Support Trial Court’s Finding That Defendants Derived No Practical Benefit From Their Partially Successful SLAPP Motion. California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1) entitles a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike to recover attorney’s fees and costs, but does not define the term “prevailing defendant” and is silent
Attorney Disqualification Efforts Properly Excluded. This one is interesting because it evokes the old adage “be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are.” In Elliott v. Maland, Case No. D078935 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2022) (unpublished), a partially successful SLAPP defendant sought $23,976.50 in attorney’s fees but the
