7 results for 'cat:"Anti-SLAPP" AND cat:"Defamation" AND cat:"Attorney Fees"'.
[Consolidated.] J. McFadden finds that the trial court properly granted the company's motion to dismiss the individual's defamation claim under Georgia's anti-SLAPP law. The individual alleged in a conversion and breach of fiduciary duty action that the company made false statements in responding to an SEC subpoena for records regarding a financial transaction. The alleged statements made by the company related to an official proceeding and concern protected activity. The individual's defamation claim was also untimely. The trial court incorrectly denied the company's request for attorney fees and improperly ordered the company to produce attorney-client privileged communications under a fiduciary duty exception. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: A24A0268, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, attorney Fees
Per curiam, the Vermont Supreme Court finds the trial court properly struck and dismissed a pro se complaint regarding defamation, libel, false light, and negligence claims against a newspaper and its journalist. The individual argues that the court abused its discretion when the newspaper and its journalist were awarded $14,741.80 in attorney fees and costs under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute. When the court ruled on the motion to strike, the fees were mandatory. Affirmed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 23-AP-338, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, attorney Fees
J. Cadish finds the district court properly denied attorney fees for the appellate counsel. After the dentist sued the law firm for defamation, the law firm's special anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss was denied. The district court then entered summary judgment in favor of the law firm, awarding its trial counsel attorney fees, yet denying fees for its appellate counsel. The denial was based on the unsuccessful outcome of the anti-SLAPP appeal. All necessary factors were properly considered, and no abuse of discretion is found. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 83213, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, attorney Fees
J. Wilson finds that the trial court partly erred in denying the motions to dismiss of the client and media consultant who were sued by an attorney for defamation over an alleged libelous video. The Texas Citizens' Participation Act motions should have been granted in part, for instance with respect to the invasion of privacy claims. Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: October 31, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00724-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, attorney Fees
J. Cohen finds that the trial court properly dismissed an individual's complaint for failure to state a claim of defamation after he was arrested for threating the state’s House speaker. The individual argues that the newspaper published an article out of hate with the headline reading, “Defendant who threatened House speaker released with several conditions.” The newspaper is entitled to attorney fees and to have the complaint stricken. Reversed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Cohen, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 22-AP-222, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, attorney Fees
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Drozd grants $275,000 in attorney fees to a candy company after it succeeded on its Anti-SLAPP motion in a man’s libel case against it. The original $355,000 in requested fees is reduced due, in part, to a reduction in hours listed and certain hourly rates.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv35, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, attorney Fees
J. McConnell finds that the trial court properly found for the city attorney in a defamation case and properly awarded her attorney fees and costs after she prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion. The individual who brought the defamation case did not timely file a motion to tax the costs outlined in the city attorney's memorandum of costs. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: McConnell, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: D080283, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, attorney Fees