Lund

Lund v. Merrick CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2014G048210California1,223 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from an award of attorney fees following the granting of a 1 motion made under the anti-SLAPP statute. Sherry Lund, the appellant here, prevailed on this motion in the trial court; we reversed, however, and directed the trial court to enter judgment for respondent Dominique Merrick. Merrick subsequently moved for her attorney fees, as permitted by the statute, a motion granted by the trial court. Lund has appealed on several grounds. We reverse the order granting Merrick her fees and remand the matter to the trial court. Merrick presented no admissible evidence regarding the amount of the fees. There was, therefore, no evidentiary support for the amount of the fees the trial court awarded. If Merrick wants attorney fees, she will have to renew the motion with admissible evidence.

FACTS

Lund sued Merrick for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Merrick filed a motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion, and Merrick appealed. We reversed and instructed the trial court to 2 grant the motion and dismiss the case. Merrick then made a motion for her attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.