Cases: SLAPP

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             In Baral v. Schnitt, Case No. B298050 (2d Dist., Div. 1 January 28, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – who had won a jury verdict against business partner defendant of $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in […]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             In Laue v. Ortiz, Case No. H047475 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), defendant successfully SLAPPed plaintiff’s complaint and was awarded fees and costs as mandated under Code Civ.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 B304481/ B307759 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 1, 2021) (unpublished), the lower court granted $23,362.50 to a SLAPP winner, which was affirmed on appeal except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

SLAPP: Award Of $9,800 In Attorney Fees, Pursuant to § 425.16(c)(1), To Prevailing Cross-Complainant Reversed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

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

Probate, SLAPP: Trial Court SLAPPING Trustee/Joining Beneficiary’s Disinheritance (No Contest Clause) Petition Properly Granted $13,889 In SLAPP Fees Against Trustee/Joining Beneficiary In Their Individual Capacities

Cases: Probate, Cases: SLAPP

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

Lodestar, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Pasternack Decision Now Published

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Scroll to Top