About $83,000 In Frivolous SLAPP Fees Affirmed On Appeal. In Ibbetson v. Grant, Case Nos. G059067/G059352 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2021) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed about an $83,000 attorney’s fees award in favor of plaintiffs for a frivolous SLAPP motion. [So, defendants, beware, you can get mandatory SLAPP fees if a […]
Lack Of Evidentiary Challenges To Hourly Rates Justified No Reduction, And Block Billing Does Not Have To Be Reduced Depending On The Circumstances. In Nejad v. Abernathy, Case Nos. B304481/ B307759 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 1, 2021) (unpublished), the lower court granted $23,362.50 to a SLAPP winner, which was affirmed on appeal except
No Abuse Of Discretion In Basing Lodestar On Local Sonoma County Counsel Rates Rather Than Major Metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area Rates When Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Impracticability Or Impossibility Of Hiring Local Counsel. The only question before the 1/2 DCA in Gentile v. Cohodes, Case No. A161721 (1st Dist., Div. 2 October 25,
Plaintiff’s Federal Claim Did Not Preempt SLAPP Fee Award Which Trial Court Reduced From Requested $516,548.13 After Considering Hours Reasonably Expended And Duplicative Efforts, And Plaintiff Demonstrated No Abuse Of Discretion. In AWI Builders v. Alliant Consulting, Case Nos. B294662, B297189, B298699 and B300834 (2d Dist., Div. 4 October 22, 2021) (unpublished), a public
Trial Court Made No Finding That SLAPP Motion Was Frivolous Or Filed Solely To Cause Unnecessary Delay Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c)(1) entitles a plaintiff, or cross-complainant as the case may be, prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion to recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees if the court finds the anti-SLAPP motion to be
CCP § 1026 Was The Governing Costs Allocation Statute Regarding SLAPP Fee Award. Although this case is must reading for probate practitioners on the scope of actions for which “no contest” clauses encompass, Cadena v. Vose, Case No. F080428 (5th Dist. July 28, 2021) (unpublished) shows how fees awardable under the SLAPP statute can
Acceptance Of A Reduced Rate From Client Does Not Preclude Attorney From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method. In our June 10, 2021 post, we discussed Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) which was unpublished at the time. Pasternack follows other California decisions
Plaintiff’s Initial Non-Binding Arbitration Win Of $1,325 Was Vacated In Superior Court, So Plaintiff Hired A Paralegal Years Later To Help Draft A Complaint That Ultimately Invited A Motion To Strike. Corey v. Mudgett, Case No. D077532 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 22, 2021) (unpublished) does not directly involve the appeal of an attorney
$1.7 Million In Fees Had Been Requested. Michael Sanchez, a Hollywood talent agent and the brother of Lauren Sanchez (Lauren is Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’s girlfriend), sued Mr. Bezos for defamation arising from allegations that he leaked nude photos of Mr. Bezos to the press. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge dismissed the
An Attorney Accepting A Reduced Rate From A Client Is Not Precluded From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method. In Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike was awarded $146,010 out of his requested $330,420
