In this appeal from the subsequent fees order, plaintiffs make no genuine challenge to the fees order itself and instead seek to relitigate the validity of the underlying anti-SLAPP ruling and the merits of their prior appeal. We conclude that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the fees order and impose sanctions against appellants’ counsel ....
Defendants have not requested an award of sanctions payable to them, but we will impose sanctions payable to the clerk of this court to compensate the state for the cost to the taxpayers of processing a frivolous appeal. (In re Marriage of Gong & Kwong (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 510, 520.) A cost analysis undertaken by the clerk’s office for the Second District estimated that the cost of processing an appeal resulting in an opinion was approximately $8,500 in 2008, while another calculation made in 1992 gave a conservative estimate of $5,900 to $6,000. (Ibid.) According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, these figures are equivalent to approximately $13,000 in today’s dollars.
The MetNews has C.A. Imposes Sanctions for Relitigating Merits on Fee Appeal -- In Case Where Plaintiff Was Ordered to Pay Costs After Challenge to School Mask Mandate Was Declared SLAPP, Opinion Says Counsel Pursued Appeal for Improper Purpose Where Barely Addressed Reasonableness of Award
On the federal side, the 9th Circuit publishes an opinion here about the collateral order doctrine:
The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction interlocutory appeals ...., holding that the district court’s denial of [appellant's] good-faith defense to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
See Prof. Martin's take here.
Posts
