It is not uncommon for litigants to challenge costs that were incurred by the other side in connection with a successful anti-SLAPP motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), provides that except as otherwise provided by statute, “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Such costs generally “shall be … [Read more...] about How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion
Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?
Plaintiffs often incorrectly point to their attorney's fees and costs to set the standard for what is reasonable. Plaintiffs will urge a court to use their attorney's claimed expenditure of time as the yardstick for an award of fees. However, courts "should defer to the winning lawyer's professional judgment as to how much time he was required to spend on the case." Moreno v. … [Read more...] about Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?
May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?
In most cases a court is not permitted to consider settlement offers under Evidence Code section 1152, which makes "inadmissible" evidence that is offered to "prove [the offeror's] liability for the loss." The main purpose of this rule is to encourage settlement. However, that section does not prohibit a judge from considering a plaintiff's rejection of a settlement offer when … [Read more...] about May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?
Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?
There is no cognizable claim for intentional infliction of physical distress under California law. See Free v. Peikar, No. 1:17-cv-00159 MSJ (PC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61985, at *17 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) ("Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for intentional infliction of physical distress. There is no such claim, however, under California law."). Further, we are unaware … [Read more...] about Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?
Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?
Confusion abounds among litigants as to whether and when the anti-SLAPP may apply in a given case. A common mistake is to assume that the statute does not apply in bankruptcy court. However, there is long-standing authority in the Ninth Circuit for the application of California’s anti-SLAPP law in federal court so long as the claims are pendant state law claims and do not … [Read more...] about Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?