Cases: SLAPP

SLAPP: Where In Pro Per Litigant Hired An Assisting Attorney To Help With A SLAPP Motion And Apportioned Requested Fees 50% To Reflect Winning On One Out Of Two Claims, Appellate Court Affirmed Trial Judge’s SLAPP Fee Award

Cases: SLAPP

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 […]

SLAPP: 2/5 CCA Affirms Order Granting Attorneys’ Anti-SLAPP Motion After Previous Attorney Sues New Attorneys For Advising Client Not To File Complaint Drafted By Previous Attorney

Cases: SLAPP

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

Prevailing Party, SLAPP: 4/3 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Determination That Cross-Defendants Achieving Partial Success On SLAPP Motion Were Prevailing Parties And Entitled To Attorney Fees.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP

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             In Harris v. Powerdrive Oil and Gas Company, Case No. G059623 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 4, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court partially granted

SLAPP: 2/1 DCA Affirms $279,197.80 In SLAPP Fees Awarded To Defendant Who Ultimately Lost Lawsuit With A Jury Verdict Against Him In The Amount Of $3.5 Million

Cases: SLAPP

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             In Baral v. Schnitt, Case No. B298050 (2d Dist., Div. 1 January 28, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – who had won a jury verdict against business partner defendant of $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in

Deadlines, SLAPP: SLAPP Defendants Must File A Formal Costs Memorandum Or Fee Motion After Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Action In Order To Claim SLAPP Fees

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: SLAPP

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.

Deadlines, Judgment Enforcement, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Trial Court Correctly Determined Reimbursement Of Fees/Costs Sought By Prevailing SLAPP Defendant Were For Judgment Enforcement, Not Appellate Fees, Motion Was Timely Filed

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $23,100 SLAPP Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal, Minus A Small Amount For A Nonrelated Demand Letter

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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

SLAPP: 1/2 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Attorney Fees Award To Successfully SLAPPing Defendant That Included A Reduction To The Hourly Rates Charged By His Counsel

Cases: SLAPP

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,

SLAPP: No Abuse Of Discretion Nor Improper Legal Analysis In Trial Court’s Separate Awards To Five Groups Of Successfully SLAPPing Defendants Totaling $280,098.15

Cases: SLAPP

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

Scroll to Top