Defendants won a SLAPP motion and were awarded partial fees under the mandatory fee-shifting statute, although some in pro per attorneys were denied some fees under Trope. So, the other side appealed, mainly contending that the fees/costs motions were untimely.
Appealing party was not successful in Zhang v. Sugars, Case No. B243152 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 17, 2013) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice Mallano for a 3-0 panel.
The main flaw in the appeal was the failure to recognize that costs/fee motions deadlines are extended where a notice of entry is not served by someone--in this case, the relevant deadline was 180 days from the entry of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion, which meant the costs/fees motions were timely under the more lengthy deadlines.
Plaintiff also challenged a minor $830 costs award to one of the winning SLAPP defendants, but this award was just fine because it represented costs as a first appearance fee and motion filing expenses. Fully justified, under pertinent decisional law. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1383 (1995).)
Comments