After prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion, counsel will file often file a separate motion for attorney's fees and costs. In order to obtain a recovery, counsel has the burden to substantiate the fees and costs. While invoices are not required, courts often prefer them (or other detailed time entries). One issue that comes up often is whether to redact attorney-client … [Read more...] about Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?
May a court adjust the lodestar upward based on exceptional representation?
Under California Supreme Court Precedent, a trial court may adjust the lodestar figure based on factors such as the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the quality of representation. Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1132; see also Edgerton v. State Personnel Board (2000) 83 Cal.Ap.4th 1350, 1363. In Edgerton, the court approved a 1.5x multiplier in light of the … [Read more...] about May a court adjust the lodestar upward based on exceptional representation?
What is a contingent fee multiplier in the context of an anti-SLAPP fee motion?
In Ketchum, our State Supreme Court reiterated that fee awards should be fully compensatory. Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1133. The unadorned lodestar is computed by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent by the prevailing hourly rate for private “attorneys in the community conducting ‘noncontingent’ litigation of the same type.” Id. “We remarked that the reasonable … [Read more...] about What is a contingent fee multiplier in the context of an anti-SLAPP fee motion?
Is the reasonably hourly rate capped to what was paid by an insurer for purposes of determining the lodestar?
Losing plaintiffs often argue after an anti-SLAPP shellacking that a defendant is limited to what an insurance company paid defense counsel. Typically, those rates are "insurance rates," and are thus way below market rates. But this is wrong. Courts have consistently declined to cap the reasonable hourly rate to what was paid by an insurer. In Pasternack v. McCullough … [Read more...] about Is the reasonably hourly rate capped to what was paid by an insurer for purposes of determining the lodestar?
Are anti-SLAPP fees recoverable in federal court?
The short answer is, yes. The attorney's fee provision under subdivision (c) of the anti-SLAPP statute is applicable in federal court in diversity cases. The reason it applies is because it is deemed "substantive" for purposes of the Erie doctrine, and thus it does not directly collide with procedural rules, e.g., FRCP rules 56, 12, or 8. Newsham v. Lockheed MIssiles Space Co. … [Read more...] about Are anti-SLAPP fees recoverable in federal court?