For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Modification: Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
Trial court's order granting plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant's cross-claim for fraud was vacated because defendant showed probability of prevailing on that claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/6 Jun. 25, 2021
Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
Trial court's order granting plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant's cross-claim for fraud was vacated because defendant showed probability of prevailing on that claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/6 Jun. 7, 2021
Dunning v. Johnson
Defendants' attorneys did not bring CEQA litigation with malice; thus, their anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 May 17, 2021
Towner v. County of Ventura
Trial court erred in granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motion because County filed confidential personnel records without first complying with mandatory procedures for disclosure, which is illegal under Government Code Section 1222. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/7 May 3, 2021
Ratcliff v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because plaintiffs used defendant's pending civil action and investigation to show defendant's ratification of tortious conduct. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/5 May 3, 2021
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company
Trial court properly denied appellant's anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiff established probability of prevailing on its fraud claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Apr. 22, 2021
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez
Dismissal due to technical or procedural ground, such as pursuant to settlement agreement, is not considered favorable termination for purposes of malicious prosecution. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/5 Apr. 21, 2021
Muddy Waters v. Superior Court
Trial court erred in denying defendant's special motion to strike based upon commercial speech exception. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/2 Apr. 8, 2021
Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista
City's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted because plaintiff could not prevail on his complaint that City wrongfully disclosed his personnel records pertaining to sustained findings of making false reports. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/3 Mar. 18, 2021
Area 55 v. Nicholas & Tomasevic
For purposes of anti-SLAPP statute, trial court erred in ruling that Appellants did not demonstrate probability of prevailing on merits of their malicious prosecution claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Feb. 24, 2021
Hoang v. Tran
Respondent was collaterally estopped from claiming published article did not concern matter of public interest because identical issue was previously decided against him in prior proceeding. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/6 Feb. 3, 2021
Trinity Risk Management v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions
Filing amended complaint does not render cross-complaint null; thus, anti-SLAPP motion to strike cross-complainants' defamation claim was not rendered moot. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Jan. 19, 2021
Balla v. Hall
For readers to perceive defendants' advertisement as harmful to plaintiff's reputation, they would need outside context; thus, trial court should have granted defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Jan. 8, 2021
Dziubla v. Piazza
Litigation privilege does not extend to statements that bear no reasonable relationship to any judicial proceedings on which privilege is assertedly based. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Dec. 31, 2020
Changsha Metro Group Co. v. Xufeng
Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5(f)'s procedure was inapplicable to requests for attorney's fees in frivolous anti-SLAPP suits. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/2 Nov. 5, 2020
RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co.
Trial court properly granted defendant's anti-SLAPP motion because the filing of defendant's mechanic's lien constituted protected activity. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Oct. 28, 2020
Modification: Reyes v. Kruger
Appellant's challenge to the order on anti-SLAPP motions was not cognizable on appeal from the judgment. 		Anti-SLAPP 6DCA Oct. 23, 2020
Reyes v. Kruger
Appellant's challenge to the order on anti-SLAPP motions was not cognizable on appeal from the judgment. 		Anti-SLAPP 6DCA Sep. 29, 2020
Murray v. Tran
Although alleged defamatory statements were of public concern, they were not made in connection with public discussion and thus not protected by anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Sep. 25, 2020
Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion had no merit because plaintiffs' complaint was not based on protected activity. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/2 Sep. 21, 2020
Golden State Seafood, Inc. v. Schloss
Appellant's anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because respondent demonstrated likelihood of success on merits of its malicious prosecution claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Aug. 10, 2020
Modification: Roche v. Hyde
Trial court correctly denied defendants' anti-SLAPP motions because plaintiff made sufficient showing that he was likely to succeed on merits of malicious prosecution claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 Jul. 31, 2020
Roche v. Hyde
Trial court correctly denied defendants' anti-SLAPP motions because plaintiff made sufficient showing that he was likely to succeed on merits of malicious prosecution claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 Jul. 2, 2020
Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
Anti-SLAPP statute cannot be invoked by a defendant whose assertedly protected activity is illegal as a matter of law. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/4 Jun. 23, 2020
Sandlin v. McLaughlin
Anti-SLAPP motion was not moot, public interest litigation exemption was inapplicable, and motion should have been granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Jun. 22, 2020
Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Co.
Allegations challenged by anti-SLAPP motion did not include any statement made in connection with an issue under consideration by judicial body. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Jun. 22, 2020
Wittenberg v. Bornstein
Plaintiff failed to show minimal merit as to fiduciary duty and conspiracy allegations and therefore defendant's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/3 Jun. 15, 2020
Dorit v. Noe
MFAA proceedings qualify as 'official proceedings' and therefore cannot support malicious prosecution claim under anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 May 28, 2020
Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin
Anti-SLAPP statue's application to an initiated lawsuit does not necessarily mean its causes of action arose from protected activity. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 May 28, 2020
Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng
Proper procedure to follow for plaintiff's attorneys' fees request for opposing anti-SLAPP motion was procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 subdivision (a) and (c). 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/2 May 21, 2020
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.