Although It Was A Close Call, Frivolity Determination Was No Abuse Of Discretion. A lower court in Edward v. Ellis, Case No. G060310 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 28, 2022) (unpublished) denied a SLAPP motion and found that the motion was frivolous, such that a defendant was hit with about $43,000 in SLAPP attorney’s […]
Even If Construed As A “Partial” SLAPPback, No Authority Cited To Preclude Fee Recovery. In J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair, Case No. A160098 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 9, 2022) (unpublished), defendant attorneys filed an anti-SLAPP motion which was granted on an abuse of process count and denied on other counts brought by
Holidays Did Not Stop The Clock On Defendants’ Deadline And Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5 Does Not Govern When The Clock Begins Under Rule 8.104. In Tye v. Papp, Case No. E076523 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2022) (unpublished), defendants were awarded $33,120 in attorney fees and $91.85 in costs under Code Civ.
Self-Represented Attorney Cannot Get Sanctions For Frivolous SLAPP Motion. In the SLAPP area, a trial judge can award fees as sanctions against a defendant which files a frivolous SLAPP motion. That did occur in Stuart Kane LLP v. The Law Offices of J.D. Cuzzolina, Esq., Case No. G060172 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr.27, 2022)
A Little Over $38,000 Was The Final Fee Award. Although an in pro per litigant cannot obtain a SLAPP fees award, he can get an award where he retains an attorney to assist him with prosecuting a SLAPP motion, even if the attorney is not of record. (Witte v. Kaufman, 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1207
It's About The Attorneys Fees . . . Attorney Richard Pech, in pro per, sued attorneys Stephen Doniger and Alan Burroughs, alleging that Doniger and Burroughs advised Pech's client not to file a complaint Pech drafted, thereby depriving Pech of the ability to collect attorney's fees. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion and were able
Determination Of Prevailing Party Status In SLAPP Motion Lies Within The Broad Discretion Of The Trial Court, And Will Not Be Overturned Absent A Showing Of Abuse Of That Discretion. In Harris v. Powerdrive Oil and Gas Company, Case No. G059623 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 4, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court partially granted
Practical Benefit Test Unnecessary Where Defendant Wholly Prevailed On Anti-SLAPP Motion And Was Entitled To Mandatory Fees. In Baral v. Schnitt, Case No. B298050 (2d Dist., Div. 1 January 28, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – who had won a jury verdict against business partner defendant of $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in
Failure To File Was Dispositive To Majority Opinion; Dissent Believed That The Fee Entitlement Request In The SLAPP Motion Papers Properly Teed Up The Issue. Over a dissent, a majority of an appellate court panel in Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc., Case No. A160358 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan.
Distinction Between Enforcement Fees And Appellate Fees Set Forth In McQueen Governed. In Laue v. Ortiz, Case No. H047475 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), defendant successfully SLAPPed plaintiff’s complaint and was awarded fees and costs as mandated under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1) – the anti-SLAPP fee shifting provision. After unsuccessfully appealing
