13 Cited authorities

Ketchum v. Moses
24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,736 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof
ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson
93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 638 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff "failed to establish probability of success under California's anti-SLAPP statute on abuse of process claim because plaintiff alleged misuse of administrative process of Federal Communications Commission rather than abuse of judicial process"
Christian Reasearch Institute v. Alnor
165 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 359 times
Holding that evidence submitted in support of an attorney's fees motion should "allow the court to consider . . . how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably expended"
Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank
974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 255 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that billing correspondence is not protected unless it `also reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law'
Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.
705 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 73 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding trade-secret counterclaim not compulsory where plaintiff's claim was also a trade-secret claim and the accused products-Barbie and Bratz dolls- were competing products
Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.
39 Cal.App.4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 113 times
Holding that the Legislature intended the fee language in section 425.16, subdivision (c), to apply only to the motion to strike, not to the entire case
In re Shargel
742 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1984) Cited 82 times
Holding that absent "special circumstances," identity of client and source of fee are not protected by attorney-client privilege and rejecting cases that adhere to "incrimination rationale"
Kearney v. Foley and Lardner
553 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Cal. 2008) Cited 31 times
Noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)'s fourteen-day timing requirement was applicable even though fee application was based on California substantive law but granting defendants' motion for an extension of time because of excusable neglect
In re Horn
976 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 48 times 3 Legal Analyses
Granting attorney's Rule 17(c) motion to quash subpoena that was overbroad and unreasonable because compliance would violate attorney-client privilege
Smith v. Payne
No. C 12-01732 DMR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) Cited 14 times
Finding $465 hourly rate sought in connection with anti-SLAPP motion in this district "well within the range of reasonable hourly rates"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,982 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 Cited 2,833 times 110 Legal Analyses
Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

Harmoni International Spice, Inc. et al v. Wenxuan Bai et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

Holding that plaintiff "failed to establish probability of success under California's anti-SLAPP statute on abuse of process claim because plaintiff alleged misuse of administrative process of Federal Communications Commission rather than abuse of judicial process"

Holding that evidence submitted in support of an attorney's fees motion should "allow the court to consider . . . how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably expended"

Holding that billing correspondence is not protected unless it `also reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law'

Holding trade-secret counterclaim not compulsory where plaintiff's claim was also a trade-secret claim and the accused products-Barbie and Bratz dolls- were competing products

Holding that the Legislature intended the fee language in section 425.16, subdivision (c), to apply only to the motion to strike, not to the entire case

Holding that absent "special circumstances," identity of client and source of fee are not protected by attorney-client privilege and rejecting cases that adhere to "incrimination rationale"

Noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)'s fourteen-day timing requirement was applicable even though fee application was based on California substantive law but granting defendants' motion for an extension of time because of excusable neglect

Granting attorney's Rule 17(c) motion to quash subpoena that was overbroad and unreasonable because compliance would violate attorney-client privilege

Finding $465 hourly rate sought in connection with anti-SLAPP motion in this district "well within the range of reasonable hourly rates"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees