Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B320658
|
Brown v. City of Inglewood
Inglewood treasurer's retaliation claims against the City and City Counsel arose out of protected voting activity and did not have minimal merit because she was not an employee. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
F. Rothschild | Jul. 3, 2023 |
B321087
|
Divine Food and Catering v. Western Diocese of the Armenian
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution action had minimal merit since court's statements regarding defendants' purported oral lease were not a judgment or verdict sufficient to trigger the interim adverse judgment rule. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Jun. 30, 2023 |
A166898
|
Hastings College Conservation Committee v. Faigman
Though legislation changing Hastings Law School's name could adversely affect protected speech, anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because the legislation, not the protected speech, was the basis of the lawsuit. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Goldman | Jun. 7, 2023 |
B312937M
|
Modification: Collins v. Waters
Congresswoman's anti-SLAPP motion was granted in error because plaintiff had made a preliminary evidentiary showing that he could prevail in his underlying defamation suit. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Jun. 6, 2023 |
B313105
|
Nirschl v. Schiller
Hirer's statements about a nanny to her agency about her termination were not protected statements made in anticipation of litigation because the threat of litigation was merely theoretical. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Fruin | May 12, 2023 |
B312937
|
Collins v. Waters
Congresswoman's anti-SLAPP motion was granted in error because plaintiff had made a preliminary evidentiary showing that he could prevail in his underlying defamation suit. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | May 11, 2023 |
20-16046
|
Gunn v. Drage
Federal courts ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion are entitled to rely on extrinsic evidence for both the first and second steps of the analysis. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
B. Cogan | Apr. 24, 2023 |
A162859
|
Durkin v. City and County of San Francisco
Property owner's anti-SLAPP motion was reversed because his protected petitioning activity did not constitute the factual allegations in appellants' petition for writ of mandate against San Francisco housing decisionmakers. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Fujisaki | Apr. 18, 2023 |
D079835
|
Billauer v. Escobar-Eck
Defendant established a probability of success on libel claim because plaintiff's social media posts asserted that defendant was an unscrupulous liar who would do anything to build a development project. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Huffman | Mar. 2, 2023 |
B310636
|
Geragos v. Abelyan
The *Flatley* extortion exemption to protected representation communications does not apply where there is a material dispute about the allegedly extortionate communications. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Stratton | Mar. 2, 2023 |
C093421
|
Water for Citizens of Weed California v. Churchwell White LLP
Anti-SLAPP motion was affirmed because plaintiffs did not establish law firm lacked probable cause to bring quiet title action based on a formal request to determine a corporation's water rights. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Hull | Feb. 13, 2023 |
G060597
|
Starr v. Ashbrook
Allegations underlying claim of misused trust assets were not protected activities under anti-SLAPP statute because misusing trust assets is not in furtherance of a right of petition or free speech. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Sanchez | Jan. 30, 2023 |
H049860
|
Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Grp.
As the federal equivalent of the state's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires showing that the violation was material, the state statute also requires the same objective standard. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
A. Danner | Jan. 18, 2023 |
E077320
|
White v. Davis
Daughter's application for an elder abuse restraining order against her father's second wife and step-daughter survived an anti-SLAPP challenge because defendants' attempts to control the father were not protected activities. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
A. McKinster | Jan. 9, 2023 |
B316304
|
Cordoba Corp. v. City of Industry
Trial court properly granted anti-SLAPP motion where the gravamen of dispute arose from a lawsuit, a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Jan. 5, 2023 |
A162852
|
Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley
Malicious prosecution claim was not subject to anti-SLAPP motion to strike where plaintiff demonstrated prior action lacked probable cause and was prosecuted with indifference, suggesting malice. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Richman | Dec. 29, 2022 |
C091172
|
City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures
Anti-SLAPP motion to strike was properly denied because the motion, asserting that a theme park was an artistic work intended to be excepted from the commercial speech exemption, was devoid of merit. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
A. Hoch | Dec. 22, 2022 |
D079827
|
Bishop v. The Bishop's School
Because termination letter was for private purposes only, not contributing to public discourse, it was not protected free speech activity under anti-SLAPP provisions. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Buchanan | Dec. 22, 2022 |
B322736
|
Flickinger v. Finwall
Counsel's prelitigation letter did not qualify as extortion that was unprotectable under Civil Code Section 425.16 because it did not fall outside the bounds of professional norms. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Dec. 1, 2022 |
G059429
|
Timothy W. v. Julie W.
Litigation privilege barred breach of oral contract claims in anti-SLAPP suit between divorcing couple. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Nov. 23, 2022 |
A161843
|
Young v. Midland Funding, LLC
Debtor plaintiff would likely prevail on the merits of her Rosenthal Act cause of action against creditor because plaintiff made a prima facie showing that she was not served with process by substituted service. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Streeter | Oct. 11, 2022 |
A161959
|
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39 v. Macy's, Inc.
Labor Code Section 1138's heightened standard requires clear, unequivocal, and convincing proof of actual misconduct participation or authorization by union leadership to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Brown | Oct. 3, 2022 |
H048817
|
Li v. Jin
Defendant's application for tax-exempt status of alumni association was protected as a statement made during a "proceeding" under the anti-SLAPP statute since the IRS made discretionary determinations for each applicant. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Lie | Sep. 20, 2022 |
G052367
|
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
Surgeon was not likely to prevail on retaliation claims against employer hospital because they were based on communicative statements protected by the litigation privilege. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Sep. 16, 2022 |
B313253
|
Manlin v. Milner
Improper diversion of LLC funds to pay litigation expenses did not arise from a protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
V. Chaney | Sep. 9, 2022 |
20-17285
|
CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Group, LLC
Operator of private prisons' implied defamation theory failed because writer's articles could not reasonably be understood as implying that it detained children separated from their parents in its facilities. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
S. Thomas | Aug. 31, 2022 |
S262032
|
Geiser v. Kuhns
Although demonstration outside CEO's home implicated a private dispute, when considered in context, it could also be reasonably understood to implicate an issue of public interest as required for anti-SLAPP protection. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
G. Liu | Aug. 30, 2022 |
A163086
|
Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC
Trial court improperly denied attorney's fees on prevailing anti-SLAPP motions by reasoning that the separate motions could have been brought as one consolidated motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Wiseman | Aug. 26, 2022 |
S260736
|
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment
Legal claims predicated on statements made to promote sales of an album were not subject to anti-SLAPP statute because they were quintessential commercial speech that was subject to regulation. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Jenkins | Aug. 18, 2022 |
B313842
|
Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management Corp.
Anti-SLAPP motion was denied because the filing of the malicious prosecution lawsuit did not form the basis of respondent's retaliation claim. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
K. Yegan | Aug. 8, 2022 |