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?
Anti-SLAPP
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?
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?
Clarity Co. Consulting, LLC v. Gabriel: Second District Court of Appeal Imposes Sanctions for Taking Frivolous Appeal
This case is a cautionary tale for attorneys. Plaintiff Clarity Co. Consulting LLC, a consulting company, alleged causes of action for breach of contract and other related claims against defendant ONclick, a health care start up company (and other individuals associated with the company) arising out of a failure to pay for services. ONclick's general counsel acting in his … [Read more...] about Clarity Co. Consulting, LLC v. Gabriel: Second District Court of Appeal Imposes Sanctions for Taking Frivolous Appeal
Can a plaintiff successfully move to set aside an anti-SLAPP judgment based on the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473b?
In certain circumstances, plaintiffs may move to set aside an anti-SLAPP judgment under the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473b, claiming attorney “mistake,” “inadvertence,” or “surprise." But such a motion would be unavailing because it does not seek relief from a default, default judgment, or dismissal, but rather a judgment entered pursuant to the … [Read more...] about Can a plaintiff successfully move to set aside an anti-SLAPP judgment based on the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473b?