To do the best job possible as a mediator, arbitrator and referee, I review and summarize every new published California civil case. In this blog post, I discuss a new civil case that was published last month.
Frivolous anti-SLAPP Motions to Strike
Can a defendant who filed a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion to strike be ordered to pay attorney fees? Last month, the Third District Court of Appeal published a decision addressing this issue. To find out what they decided, watch the video above and read my summary of the case below.
New CA Anti-SLAPP Decision
City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures etc. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 17827565: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure, section 425. 16) and it’s order awarding plaintiff attorney fees of $72,798.65 and costs of $1,053.31 because the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The...
To do the best job possible as a mediator, arbitrator and referee, I keep up with and summarize the new published California civil cases. In this blog I discuss a new civil case that was published last month.
I've been thinking for years that the anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) could create potential legal malpractice liability for California lawyers. Now it has. Last month, the Second District Court of Appeal published a new case addressing whether attorneys and law firms can be liable for not discussing with clients the potential risks and damages if a defendant files a successful anti-SLAPP motion to strike. In the video above I briefly discuss this new case. My summary of the case is below.
New Legal Malpractice Decision
Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1055417: The Court of Appeal reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the trial court's order granting defendants' motion...