Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C094008
|
Callanan v. Grizzly Designs, LLC
Defendant's cross-complaint was not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike because the underlying conduct, violating California labor laws, was not an activity in furtherance of the right to petition. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Earl | Jul. 26, 2022 |
A163315
|
Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. Direct Action Everywhere
Advocacy organization's alleged liability must be premised on constitutionally protected activity, rather than merely adjacent to protected activity, to be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Humes | Jul. 14, 2022 |
B309364
|
Sanchez v. Bezos
In a defamation suit, reporters' statements to plaintiff that were recounted in plaintiff's declaration were inadmissible hearsay and thus could not be considered for anti-SLAPP purposes. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Jul. 5, 2022 |
B312831
|
Bowen v. Lin
The trial court erred when it concluded that attorney's breach of contract cause of action against his clients did not arise from protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Tangeman | Jun. 24, 2022 |
B302558
|
Ratcliff v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
Allegations that the Archdiocese ratified a priest's molestation of children could not be stricken under the anti-SLAPP law because the allegedly protected activity was incidental to the complaint. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Rubin | Jun. 17, 2022 |
D078217
|
Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Pacific Dredge
Plaintiff's claim did not meet anti-SLAPP statute's minimal merit second prong since it was preempted by the Coast Guard's determination of maritime vessel eligibility. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. McConnell | Mar. 23, 2022 |
B309781
|
Pech v. Doniger
Legal counsel regarding prospective litigation and obligations under a fee agreement with a prior attorney were protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Moor | Feb. 23, 2022 |
G059477
|
Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP
Attorney's escalating series of threats, in separate emails, transformed legitimate settlement demands into unprotected extortion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Goethals | Jan. 28, 2022 |
B311883
|
Xu v. Huang
Defendant's false statements regarding competitor's business practices fell squarely within the commercial speech exemption from anti-SLAPP protection. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Crandall | Jan. 13, 2022 |
A160358
|
Catlin Insurance Company v. Danko Meredith Law Firm
Absent a pending fee request, the trial court was not required to rule on the merits of a mooted anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Streeter | Jan. 13, 2022 |
B308318
|
Sugarman v. Brown
Statements in an annual 10-K reports filed with the Securities Exchange Commission are protected activity subject to anti-SLAPP provisions. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Dec. 29, 2021 |
B307753
|
Sugarman v. Benett
Statements made by bank representatives in forms filed with the Securities Exchange Commission are protected activities as matters under review by the SEC. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Dec. 29, 2021 |
G059523
|
Edward v. Ellis
Under the anti-SLAPP statute, in a libel action involving a limited public figure, plaintiffs need only establish a probability they can prove actual malice and that may be proven through circumstantial evidence. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Goethals | Dec. 16, 2021 |
B305066
|
Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC
The allegedly misappropriated creative aspects of a writer's television pilot did not warrant anti-SLAPP protection. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
D. Perluss | Dec. 16, 2021 |
D077984
|
Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
Statements made to investors were not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because they fell under the statute's commercial speech exemption. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Huffman | Nov. 19, 2021 |
D078112
|
Weeden v. Hoffman
In the context of protected activity, the litigation privilege defense can be raised against tort claims, but not breach of contract claims. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Aaron | Oct. 15, 2021 |
B308889
|
Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies
Donkey Kong record holder provided sufficient evidence for his defamation claim to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
S. Ohta | Oct. 14, 2021 |
B305834
|
Dae v. Traver
There was 'minimal merit' to avoid being struck as SLAPP when a petition challenged provisions in a family trust containing a no contest clause. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Lui | Sep. 29, 2021 |
B305797
|
Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
Defendant's statements were not made in connection with an issue of 'candy confusion' but were aimed to whip up a crowd for vengeful retribution against a bakery. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Sep. 7, 2021 |
D076923
|
Modification: Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Huffman | Aug. 31, 2021 |
B303978
|
Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates
Second anti-SLAPP motion relying on the law of the case was appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge paragraphs in amended complaint that were previously struck by appellate court. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Aug. 25, 2021 |
G058836
|
Morris Cerullo World Evangelism v. Newport Harbor Offices etc.
Anti-SLAPP motion may not be directed to affirmative defense. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Fybel | Aug. 20, 2021 |
A158391
|
Gallano v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC
Plaintiff established probability of prevailing on her Labor Code Section 2802 claim sufficient to survive defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
G. Sanchez | Aug. 18, 2021 |
20-55579
|
Herring Networks v. Maddow
Exaggerated statement, cushioned within undisputed news story could not reasonably be understood to imply assertion of objective fact in order to amount to defamation. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Smith | Aug. 18, 2021 |
D076923
|
Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Huffman | Aug. 3, 2021 |
G060034
|
Exline v. Gillmor
Public official's Form 700 filings falls within Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.17(d)(2)'s exception to public interest exemption to anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Fybel | Aug. 2, 2021 |
S244148
|
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
Disciplinary actions imposed through peer review do not qualify as protected activity under anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Kruger | Jul. 30, 2021 |
G059446
|
Modification: People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin
Medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims were defendant's usual course of business and may not have resulted in litigation; thus, trial court properly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Jul. 23, 2021 |
G059446
|
People ex rel. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Rubin
Medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims were defendant's usual course of business and may not have resulted in litigation; thus, trial court properly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Jul. 14, 2021 |
B304642
|
Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions
Under anti-SLAPP statute, illegal conduct must be based on defendant's concession or uncontroverted and conclusive evidence. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Stratton | Jul. 1, 2021 |