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 In Elliott v. Maland, Case No. D078935 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2022) (unpublished), a partially successful SLAPP defendant sought $23,976.50 in attorney’s fees but the
Also, A Probate Court Properly Sanctioned Attorney For Violating Local Rule Page Limitations. In Tukes v. Richard, Case Nos. B307242 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 12, 2022) (published), plaintiff lost SLAPP motions against two defendants, with the lower court awarding mandatory prevailing party fees of $49,071.50 and $26,905, respectively, after making some
In Doing So, It Disagreed With Different Conclusions By Two Sister Appellate Courts. Kaplan v. Davidson, Case No. B312826 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 11, 2022) (unpublished) highlights a rift between this Division and other sister appellate courts on the question of whether denial of attorney’s fees to a plaintiff after a merits denial
California Litigation Publishes Two Helpful Attorney Fees Articles In Latest Issue. California Litigation, the journal of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association, has published two articles relating to attorney fees in the latest issue, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2022). Co-contributor to this blog Marc is one of the editors of California Litigation.
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 A lower court in Edward v. Ellis, Case No. G060310 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 28, 2022) (unpublished) denied a SLAPP motion and found that the motion was frivolous, such that a defendant was hit with about $43,000 in SLAPP attorney’s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)
