Various Challenges Did Not Prevail.
Defendants prevailed on their anti-SLAPP motion, which requires mandatory fees in the trial judge’s discretion. They asked for $44,656.73, but were awarded $22,000, but plaintiff still appealed in Lavi v. Cohen, Case Nos. B281352/B284653 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 31, 2018) (unpublished). They were not successful on appeal.
Plaintiff challenged mainly that the fees were excessive based on block billing, which is not per se objectionable. However, the lower court could discern the nature of the work and reduced based on excessive hourly rates and spending too much on the motion. So, in a word, no prejudice was shown because good discretion was exercised in making reductions for other reasons. Plaintiff then contested that the work should have been apportioned between the parties, but this did not require any restudy because the fee claimants did that already by discounting fees 10% -- so, so sorry, but no change in result for the losing plaintiff.
BLOG OBSERVATION—Depending on the facts where apportionment may be an issue, offer a discount as defendants did in this case. It worked!
Comments