11 results for 'cat:"Defamation" AND cat:"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. Cruser finds that the lower court improperly issued an order granting attorney fees in a defamation case. The group moving for the fees did not adhere to a 10-day timeline in which attorney fees are requested, and as a result, their motion was untimely and should have been denied. Reversed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Cruser, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 58155-8-II, Categories: defamation, attorney Fees
J. McFadden finds that the trial court properly granted the attorney's motion for attorney fees after the lawyer's defamation action against him was dismissed. The defamation action arose after the attorney filed motions for sanctions and a Bar complaint against the lawyer for allowing an unlicensed law student to conduct depositions in a case. Evidence supports the $21,000 attorney fee award. The trial court correctly found that the action lacked any justiciable issue of law or fact and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the award was reasonable. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: A23A1312, Categories: defamation, attorney Fees
J. Kyzar finds that the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment to the colonel and awarded attorney fees to the state agency in a defamation suit brought by a former member of the Louisiana State Police Commission. The award of $50,376 in fees to the agency was supported by the record when it prevailed on its motion to strike, and the former member did not show the colonel abused his "qualified privilege" in making the statements in the specified incident report or that he acted with malice or in bad faith. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Kyzar, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: CA-23-253, Categories: Civil Procedure, 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
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. 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
J. Howell grants default judgment against Giuliani in a defamation case as a sanction for his discovery violations, and is also ordered to pay more than $130,000 in attorney fees. "Giuliani has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations and this [c]ourt’s orders by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve or produce" the electronically stored information at issue.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Howell, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv3354, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Sanctions, defamation, attorney Fees
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
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly granted the attorney's motion to dismiss a defamation suit filed against him by a real estate developer over statements he made to the media about the developer's alleged harassment of a tenant in order to get him to leave his apartment so it could be turned into a luxury condo. The attorney's statements constituted comments on an issue of public concern and were an exercise of free speech. However, the lower court improperly denied the attorney fees and costs in this matter. Affirmed in part.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: June 13, 2023, Case #: 03188, Categories: defamation, attorney Fees