For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
You have to be a subscriber to view this page.

Civil Litigation,
Law Practice,
Judges and Judiciary

Sep. 25, 2017

Anti-SLAPP motions and attorney fees

The objective of this article and self-study test is to familiarize bench officers and attorneys with awards of attorney fees in anti-SLAPP motions Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16(c)(1).

4th Appellate District, Division 3

Matthew Ross

Senior Appellate Court Attorney
4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3

Matthew Ross is a senior appellate court attorney with the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3.

See more...

The objective of this article and self-study test is to familiarize bench officers and attorneys with awards of attorney fees in anti-SLAPP motions Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16(c)(1). Readers will learn about the nature of attorney fees awards under this provision, the means of recovery and substantiation of the fee request, and the appealability of court rulings.

Nature of Awards

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Civil Procedure

Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause Inc.

Defendant who moves under anti-SLAPP statute to strike cause of action, does not have to prove plaintiff's subjective intent.

Civil Procedure

G.R. v. Intelligator

Attorney’s failure to redact personal identifiers in filing motion falls within protected activity, despite violation of court rules.

Torts

Jackson v. Yarbray

In malicious prosecution case, defendant bears burden of proving that alleged fees were covered by award following plaintiff’s successful motion to strike.

Civil Procedure

Mann v. Quality Old Time Service Inc.

Defendants who only partially prevailed on anti-SLAPP motion were entitled to half of their claimed attorney fees.

Civil Procedure

Malin v. Singer

Restaurant owner’s extortion claim based on demand letter accusing him of embezzling funds used for illicit relations is subject to dismissal under anti-SLAPP statute.

Business Law

City of Colton v. Singletary

Anti-SLAPP motion is properly granted as to unfair business practices claim alleging party filed suit to enforce contract procured by bribery.

Civil Procedure

Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services Inc.

Party that filed SLAPP is liable for attorney fees despite filing amended complaint.

Civil Procedure

Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang

When plaintiff files dismissal before commencement of trial, trial court loses jurisdiction to act, which includes ruling on motion.

Civil Procedure

S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti

Defendants who did not file anti-SLAPP motion before plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal may not recover attorney fees and costs under anti-SLAPP statute.

Civil Procedure

Melbostad v. Fisher

Notice of appeal must be filed 60 days after court grants defendant's motion to strike and dismisses entire complaint with prejudice.

Insurance

Mallard v. Progressive Choice Insurance Co.

Use of subpoenas to conduct discovery in contractual arbitration of uninsured motorist claim is act arising from protected activity for anti-SLAPP purposes.

Attorneys

Ketchum v. Moses

Court improperly calculated statutory attorney fees for attorney defending against strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Insurance

PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler

Under Civil Code Section 1717, in-house counsel may recover attorney fees.

Attorneys

Christian Research Institute v. Alnor

Attorney fees are reduced where prevailing defendant's counsel in anti-SLAPP motion claimed work unrelated to motion.

Anti-SLAPP

569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump Inc.

On rehearing, reduction of attorney fees awarded to prevailing party in anti-SLAPP motion is upheld where sufficient evidence supported court's decision.

Attorneys

Maughan v. Google Technology Inc.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing attorney fees sought by prevailing party in its motion under anti-SLAPP statute.

Civil Procedure

Premier Medical Management Systems Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association

Mandatory award of attorney fees under anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed where no evidence of inefficient or duplicative efforts appear.

Civil Procedure

Doe v. Luster

Interlocutory order awarding or denying attorney fees under anti-SLAPP statute is not immediately appealable.

Civil Procedure

Baharian-Mehr v. Smith

Appeal of order denying anti-SLAPP motion as frivolous encompasses attorney fee award based on denial of motion.

Civil Procedure

Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency

Order granting anti-SLAPP motion with leave to amend constitutes functional equivalent of order denying motion.

Civil Procedure

Dowling v. Zimmerman

Judgment awarding attorney fees and costs to defendant is not automatically stayed during SLAPP plaintiff's perfecting of appeal from judgment.

Intellectual Property

Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea

Mandatory attorney fee award based on counsel's declarations without detailed time records is proper.

Real Property

Trapp v. Naiman

Plaintiff’s claims against attorney for filing unlawful detainer actions on behalf of his client are subject to dismissal under anti-SLAPP statute.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.