1.25 Multiplier Allowed, Lack of Specific Challenges Did Not Lead to Major Reductions, and Prior SLAPP Awards Were Not Dispositive.
If you have followed our blog, you known there is a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of SLAPP defendant winners. In Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez, Case Nos. B243205/B246602 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 9, 2014) (published), two SLAPP defendant winners won over $162,000 in fees against plaintiff (which included a 1.25 multiplier).
Plaintiff’s appeal did not get any further reduction, with defendants getting further fees on remand for prevailing on appeal.
Plaintiff complained about “block billing,” but the billing submissions were sufficient to allow for a reasoned award. Plaintiff then argued that a counsel declaration on time spent, even with after-the-fact estimates, did not suffice, but this is simply contrary to California law allowing for an attorney declaration to be good enough. (City of Colton v. Singletary, 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 785 (2012).) Plaintiff protested loudly about the excessive nature of the fees, but its generalized arguments on “too high” did not suffice because specific challenges were not raised at the trial court stage. (Premier Medical Mgt. Systems, Inc. v. CIGA, 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 (2008).) Plaintiff next argued that this particular SLAPP award was way off the charts given a comparison to fee awards in other SLAPP cases. However, this argument was rejected because each fee application stands and falls on its own unique set of facts. The multiplier was just fine based on a contingent factor, with excessive underlying fees not among the factors to be considered in determining if a positive enhancement was in order.
Comments