Fourth District, Division 3 Does Find That Fee “Estimates” For Future Work On Reply Papers/Appearance Adequately Underpins Ultimate Award.
Although it has a great discussion of the Flatley exception and the circumstances where the litigation privilege is trumped by more specific statutes, our local Fourth District, Division 3 does have a nice discussion of an argument we bloggers have pondered in numerous fee contexts.
G.R. v. Intelligator, Case No. G042006 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 10, 2010) (certified for publication) affirmed a $6,840 fee award to a SLAPP winning defendant attorney. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the lower court erred by basing part of the award on the defense attorney’s “estimates” of upcoming reply memorandum/appearance work (we call it “future work”) expected to be incurred in the SLAPP proceedings as a predicate for a fee award.
Justice Moore, writing for the panel in this case, found nothing wrong with this practice. After all, the trial judge can determine if the “future work” was appropriate because he/she had the reply brief to consider and then entertained the argument at the appearance. We bloggers are thankful that someone has clarified that “estimates” will suffice to substantiate this type of future work for fee claimant purposes.