Anti-SLAPP

Volokh’s conduct is not within the ambit of section 527.6’s definition of harassment. Volokh’s identification of Luo in a law review article and on his blog was not unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence. There was no evidence that Volokh stalked Luo, made harassing phone calls, or sent her harassing correspondence. Volokh’s writings served a legitimate purpose—a discussion… Read More

To be protected speech under CCP 425.16(e)(2), a pre-litigation communication must be connected with, or have some logical relation to litigation that is contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration.  Here, most of the emails an estranged former wife sent her ex-husband did not relate to the RICO suit she threatened to file against him.  Three of the emails… Read More

This decision holds that Jordan-Benel v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 859 F.3d 1184 is no longer good law in light of the Cal. Supreme Court's later decisions in Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057 and Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995.  To state a claim for… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion in this defamation case.  Plaintiff and defendant were each owners of units in a six-unit building governed by an HOA.  Defendant sent his defamatory statements to the building's other owners.  After an extensive analysis of the content and context of the defamatory messages, the Court concludes they were just part of a… Read More

The trial court erred in denying defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion against plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim based on criminal charges that the public prosecutor brought against plaintiff.  Though defendant initiated the criminal proceeding with a complaint to the police, the undisputed evidence showed that the police carried out an independent investigation which, though it began with interviews with defendant's employees, went a… Read More

Inspired by a homily delivered in church by the defendant, a deacon in plaintiff's church, plaintiff agreed to and did donate over $1 million to buy a car and home for an allegedly homeless family.  Later, plaintiff sued for fraud, claiming that defendant spent the donation on unauthorized items and had deed the car and home not to the homeless… Read More

Defendants' evidence on an Anti-SLAPP motion did not establish that plaintiff had discovered its claim more than three years before it sued for fraud.  The evidence at most showed that the plaintiff suspected and with diligent internet searches might have found that some of the facts stated in defendant's letter were untrue, but that would not have shown plaintiff that… Read More

To be protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute, pre-litigation communications must have been made in anticipation of litigation contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration.  Here, a lawyer's letter on behalf of an entity that plaintiff claimed owd it money was not made in the context of seriously contemplated litigation and so was not protected speech.  The lawyer and… Read More

This decision holds that Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376 has fatally undermined the holding and reasoning of South Sutter LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 634.  Baral holds that mixed causes of action must be examined under the Anti-SLAPP statute based on the allegations regarding protected activity rather than under the Pomeroy "cause of action"… Read More

California Rule of Court 3.1322 requires that a motion to strike be brought with a demurrer or within 30 days after service of complaint and requires a notice of a motion to strike "quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense."  This decision… Read More

Defendant is a student loan debt collector which sued plaintiff on a student loan debt.  Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that defendant manufactured false substitute rosters to show which entities owned the student loans it sued to collect.  The complaints alleged protected activity in the course of petitioning courts.  The case did not fit within the Flatley v.… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  The absolute litigation privilege did not protect her from liability for her web blog and Yelp! postings that allegedly defamed the plaintiff construction contractor that she said had botched repairs on her house.  Though defendant had filed a complaint with the Contractor's Licensing Board which had awarded her compensation from the plaintiff,… Read More

This decision holds that the trial court erred in denying defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action.  While the defendants made a bunch of mistakes in conducting the underlying quiet title action, they did not lack probable cause because two instruments describing the same easement signed by the same grantor gave conflicting information about the easement's temporal duration. … Read More

Distinguishing Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 173, this decision holds that plaintiff waived his right to attorney fees for opposing defendant's frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion by failing to give defendant 21-day notice before filing the motion for attorney fees.  CCP 425.16(d) provides that fees for opposing a frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion may be awarded in accordance with… Read More

The parties had been high school sweethearts.  After they broke up, defendant emailed Dartmouth, where plaintiff had enrolled for college.  The emails said various disparaging things about plaintiff including that he had been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in high school for voter fraud in a student body president election.  This decision holds that defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion was properly… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  This Brown Act suit targeted the City Council's taking action on an item that was not posted in an agenda at least 72 hours before the City Council meeting in violation of Gov. Code, § 54954.2(a)(1).  While what was said at the City Council meeting may have been protected speech, the Council's… Read More

Insofar as defendant's cross-complaint was based on plaintiff's press releases about a treatment it was developing for opioid overdose, the claims fell within the CCP 425.17(c) exemption from the Anti-SLAPP statute.  Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the fact that over recent years it obtained and spent most of its money on research and development did not show that it was not… Read More

Seyfarth was hired to investigate a professor's claim that she was discriminated against by Cal. State University Fullerton.  It performed the investigation and submitted a report to the university administration concluding there was no merit to the professor's claims. After unsuccessfully suing a host of other defendants, the professor sued Seyfarth, claiming the report and investigation were biased, etc.  Seyfarth… Read More

Seyfarth was hired to investigate a professor's claim that she was discriminated against by Cal. State University Fullerton.  It performed the investigation and submitted a report to the university administration concluding there was no merit to the professor's claims. After unsuccessfully suing a host of other defendants, the professor sued Seyfarth, claiming the report and investigation were biased, etc.  Seyfarth… Read More

This decision holds that the Anti-SLAPP motion in this case was properly denied because the suit fits within CCP 425.17(b)'s exception for suits in the public interest.  The plaintiff did not seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which the plaintiff was a member. Seeking individualized relief, such… Read More