Winning Defendant Did Something Smart: After SLAPP Motion Granted, Offered To Stipulate To A Much Lower Fees And Costs Award, Rejected By Plaintiff.
When it comes to the reasonableness of a fee award, we have posted on situations where the prevailing party offered to stipulate to a lower fees/costs award and then obtained a higher fees/costs award after that offer was rejected. Proof of this was made in Aminpour v. Verdi, Case No. B327213 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 21, 2024) (unpublished), with the lower and appellate courts persuaded that the defense higher fee request was justified in part by an attempt to resolve the controversy by the winning side.
In this one, the defense prevailed on a SLAPP motion, including having to reply to a 150-page opposition by plaintiff. Before any fees/costs motion was filed by the prevailing defendant, his counsel sent an email willing to stipulate to a definite fees/costs award in order to avoid further expenses to file an actual attorney’s fees motion, an offer which was not responded to apparently. Later, the trial judge ordered a higher fees award of $48,790 and higher costs award of $1,574.60 to defendant. Plaintiff appealed, but the appellate court determined the awards were no abuse of discretion because (1) plaintiff had argued that he should be awarded $56,225 in fees in an earlier pleading, such that the work by plaintiff demonstrated the defense request was not outrageous, citing In re Tobacco Cases I. 216 Cal.App.4th 570, 584 (2013); (2) the “fees on fees” to bring the fee motion were allowable; and (3) sufficient declaration testimony was presented to support the award given no billing records/invoices were required (although as bloggers, we would say they are highly advisable).
Comments