I’m at a crossroads with my anti-SLAPP appeal. The 4th appellate court denied my motion to stay, even though this case affects attorney fees and costs. The underlying appeal is still unresolved, and now I’m wondering what my options are. Anyone been in a similar situation?
If you think the appellate decision was wrong, one option is to request a review from the California Supreme Court. But fair warning, they don’t take every case.
Chen said:
If you think the appellate decision was wrong, one option is to request a review from the California Supreme Court. But fair warning, they don’t take every case.
That’s a good point. The Supreme Court usually only takes cases with broader implications. It’s a long shot.
Can you still file a writ of mandamus? It’s a way to ask a higher court to enforce a duty if the lower court refused to do so.
Hayes said:
Can you still file a writ of mandamus? It’s a way to ask a higher court to enforce a duty if the lower court refused to do so.
I did consider it, but it feels like a last resort. It’s tricky when the judge already denied my motion to stay.
@Fallon
Understandable. Sometimes writs work, but they’re tough to get approved.
I’ve heard you can proceed with the attorney fees and costs appeal while the anti-SLAPP case is pending. It’s not ideal, but sometimes it’s the only option.
Wynne said:
I’ve heard you can proceed with the attorney fees and costs appeal while the anti-SLAPP case is pending. It’s not ideal, but sometimes it’s the only option.
Yeah, that’s what they’re pushing me toward. Not great for efficiency, but might be my best move for now.
@Fallon
Hopefully, if the anti-SLAPP ruling goes your way, it’ll impact the fee decision down the line.
If you think there’s judicial bias, you could file a motion to recuse the judge, but be prepared with strong evidence if you go that route.
Shannon said:
If you think there’s judicial bias, you could file a motion to recuse the judge, but be prepared with strong evidence if you go that route.
Exactly. Judges don’t get recused easily. You’d need proof of bias or procedural unfairness.
Seems like a tough spot. If the Supreme Court route doesn’t work, just keep strong records for any procedural issues you want to revisit on appeal later.
WritWrangler1 said:
Seems like a tough spot. If the Supreme Court route doesn’t work, just keep strong records for any procedural issues you want to revisit on appeal later.
Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind. It’s all a bit much to track, but I’m noting everything.
@Fallon
Good idea. Being thorough now could pay off if you get a chance to revisit any issues later on.