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?
attorney's fees
Mandatory Attorneys’ Fees To Prevailing anti-SLAPP Defendants
California's anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16(c)) provides that a "prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. The fee award is not discretionary--it is mandatory--and the fees can be very significant. The purpose behind this rule is to discourage strategic lawsuits against public participation … [Read more...] about Mandatory Attorneys’ Fees To Prevailing anti-SLAPP Defendants
Can You File A SLAPP Suit And Then Dismiss It Without Any Consequences?
The mere threat of an anti-SLAPP motion (or serving the motion on the other party) may be sufficient to cause them to dismiss the suit before a hearing on the merits. Under those circumstances, are there consequences for the dismissing party? The court in Moore faced this issue and presented it clearly: "This appeal addresses the question whether the plaintiff in a … [Read more...] about Can You File A SLAPP Suit And Then Dismiss It Without Any Consequences?