Workman v. Colichman, No. B285945 (D2d4 Apr. 2, 2019)
Justice Collins drops the hammer on a really stupid anti-SLAPP motion and appeal. She affirms the denial of the motion, as well as a grant of fees to plaintiff. Then she adds more fees for the appeal.
Showing posts with label frivolous motions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label frivolous motions. Show all posts
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
§ 425.16(c) Sanctions Require an Explanation
Nunez v. Pennisi, No. H039910 (D6 Oct. 27, 2015)
This is an appeal of an order denying anti SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case and ordering defendants to pay fees as a sanction for filing a frivolous motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c).
By its very nature, the case arises from protected activity—the underlying lawsuit that was allegedly maliciously prosecuted. So it all comes down to whether plaintiff showed a probability of prevailing. The court ultimately finds that one plaintiff established a probability of prevailing against one defendant, but there was no merit as to all the other claims.
As to the sanctions, the kind of split decision on the merits that resulted here doesn’t seem to merit a finding that the motion was totally frivolous. In any event, in awarding fees based on the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, trial courts are required to follow the procedures under § 128.7, the statute that generally governs sanctions for frivolous filings. Those rules require the trial court to explain its reasoning. Since the trial court didn’t do that here, on remand it needs either to give an explanation or deny sanctions.
Reversed, in part, and remanded.
This is an appeal of an order denying anti SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case and ordering defendants to pay fees as a sanction for filing a frivolous motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c).
By its very nature, the case arises from protected activity—the underlying lawsuit that was allegedly maliciously prosecuted. So it all comes down to whether plaintiff showed a probability of prevailing. The court ultimately finds that one plaintiff established a probability of prevailing against one defendant, but there was no merit as to all the other claims.
As to the sanctions, the kind of split decision on the merits that resulted here doesn’t seem to merit a finding that the motion was totally frivolous. In any event, in awarding fees based on the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, trial courts are required to follow the procedures under § 128.7, the statute that generally governs sanctions for frivolous filings. Those rules require the trial court to explain its reasoning. Since the trial court didn’t do that here, on remand it needs either to give an explanation or deny sanctions.
Reversed, in part, and remanded.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
SLAPP Madness
Trilogy at Glen Ivy Maint. Assoc. v. Shea Homes, Inc., No D066483 (D4d1 Mar. 19, 2015)
This is a dispute between an HOA and a developer about who was entitled to some license payments from a cable company that used a planned community’s common infrastructure to distribute its services. The contract was signed by the developer, but the services were applied after the control of the common areas passed to the HOA, and the developer tried to keep the cash. The HOA sued the developer for breach of fiduciary duty for diverting the revenues of under the contract to its own use.
As happens far too often these days, the developer filed an anti-SLAPP motion. It made a mostly inscrutable argument that the case didn’t really arise from the HOA’s claim that it failed to fork over the money. Instead, the case purportedly arose from the developer’s denial of an allegation in its answer to an earlier version of the complaint in this very case. Fortunately, neither the trial court nor the court of appeal buy into the BS.
Affirmed.
This is a dispute between an HOA and a developer about who was entitled to some license payments from a cable company that used a planned community’s common infrastructure to distribute its services. The contract was signed by the developer, but the services were applied after the control of the common areas passed to the HOA, and the developer tried to keep the cash. The HOA sued the developer for breach of fiduciary duty for diverting the revenues of under the contract to its own use.
As happens far too often these days, the developer filed an anti-SLAPP motion. It made a mostly inscrutable argument that the case didn’t really arise from the HOA’s claim that it failed to fork over the money. Instead, the case purportedly arose from the developer’s denial of an allegation in its answer to an earlier version of the complaint in this very case. Fortunately, neither the trial court nor the court of appeal buy into the BS.
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)