The amount sought seems exorbitant. The time allegedly spent (133 hours) - not reasonable. The rate claimed (over $800 per hour) - way too high.

The slimy people just won't go away.

Wow!!
Simply taking the man's livelihood isn't good enough. And now you want money? You took upon this challenge on your own. The voters backed you. Let the man be in peace after the humiliation he has suffered. Don't be so viondicative.

Didn't the recall group raise quite a bit of money to fund the recall? Dauber should look to the public that she bamboozled rather than the judge for this outrageous demand for payment. If any of her students assisted in the preparation of either the recall or this motion they should speak up publicly as well as providing such information to the court.

This is a nuisance (vindictive actually) lawsuit and should be dismissed by the court. It clearly is filed with malice since she led the recall effort. This is what happens when you let voters interfere with the proper functioning of courts.

Perhaps there should be an investigation regarding the improper financial investment by the law firm in the campaign. Was their work declared as a contribution?
Where is the fee agreement?
I recall that the local firm advising the Judge made disclosures.
The issue to be decided was not frivolous nor settled.
This is unseemly.

This is horrible. Dauber tainted the voters’ opinions with half-truths and outright falsehoods, shouting rape (disproven by DNA), bias, privilege, and more—all of which were proven to be false. Dauber twisted and spun at least five of Judge Persky’s previous cases, but credible organizations found no evidence of bias or wrongdoing associated with the cases. The press failed to fact-check Dauber’s falsehoods, and thus contributed to the vast amount of misinformation that was continuously broadcast to the public.

The vote to oust Judge Persky was a farce because the voters were deceived. There cannot be a democratic election when voters are victims of deception.

After causing Judge Persky and his family overwhelming grief, tricking voters into ousting Judge Persky from the bench, and inflicting irreparable damage to Judge Persky’s reputation, Michele Dauber now plans to sue the innocent judge for $112,456--absolutely despicable.

Another newspaper reported today that Judge Persky's lawyers have noticed the deposition (questioning under oath) of Michele Dauper for early July. Even though I voted against the recall, I bet Judge Persky's lawyers had the same attorney fee agreement with their client and would now be seeking a sky-high award of attorney fees had Judge Persky won the lawsuit. Moreover, last time I checked, discovery (including the right to take depositions) closed before trial and the "trial" in this civil case occurred when the visiting judge denied the petition for writ of mandate (before the appeal and many months ago). Maybe someone will correct me on that last point. But meanwhile I predict Ms. Dauper's attorney will just object to the noticed deposition as legally unavailable at this stage of the case.

With regards to any frivolous lawsuit. The parties forced to act in court are entitled to the costs.

And since the courts clearly pointed out the illogical complaints made on behalf of the Judge, the other attorneys’ are simply allowed to be compensated for costs due to such a ridiculous attempt to prevent the vote.

They deserve to not bear the cost of the action that was a fools attack from the start.

Guinessthedog— the daily post fact checked the claims regarding the 5 cases cherry picked by dauber and showed that they were false. Their editorial was against the recall. Meanwhile the PA weekly ran a similar fact check story and reached the same conclusions. Yet their editorial parroted dauber lies and urged a yes vote on the recall.
To their eternal shame, the MV voice published the same editorial as the weekly ( so much for editorial independence).
I think many of us have realized that Bill Johnson in under dauber’s thumb and the editorial , ignoring the findings of its own reporters, is an example of why both the weekly and the voice are no longer to be trusted.

"the daily post fact checked the claims regarding the 5 cases cherry picked by dauber and showed that they were false."

The Palo Alto Daily (Com)Post is a well-known Trump-friendly rag, whose sole purpose is to slander those it sees as enemies.

Your side lied through your teeth, and you still lost.

Get. Over. It.

@@shame— the weekly and the daily post both reached the same conclusions in their analysis of the cases Cherry picked by frau dauber and her clique.
So I think we know who was lying through their teeth.
And it is the weekly that is endorsing getting rid of the judiciary that they do not like, just like trump does.

Ah, yes -- the Persky amen crowd just can't admit that they were defending the indefensible. So they go on lying, over and over and over again.

Your folks are hilarious. But not in a funny way.

The Persky legal position was a public benefit too. It concerned a matter of law which was not resolved. There was good grounds to believe that the recall process for a state officer was different than for the old municipal court judges. It's a case where the legislature left a gap in specificity.

The prevailing party is NOT entitled to legal fees. Don't mix this up with court costs. Public benefit private action is a stretch. Have a ruling sets a precedent and makes it clearer as the legislature's need to act.

Dauber should not collect anything.

It has nothing to do with the sexual assault case.

The law is California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1021.5. At least read it.

It's for plaintiffs not defendants. In this case, there was ample representation of the public good by the county and the state. Dauber shoved the recall in as a crusader that was not really an injured party, since the issue was the matter of law represented by the state and the county. The recall campaign was an involved bystander that suffered no harm, obviously, since it won as it were.

In a recent case named Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 154, the Court of Appeal held that a real party in interest may be awarded attorney fees unde CCP section 1021.5 if the party successfully defends against an attack upon a public right. Dauper was among the many official recall proponents who had to be and was named by Judge Persky in the lawsuit as real parties in interest. The recall proponents were all represented by the same fancy public interest law firm from Los Angeles. The case name really includes "Organisation." It is not my misspelling.