Anti-SLAPP

Defendant attorney's threats to reveal plaintiff's alleged crimes to a merger partner when coupled with a demand to settle the defendant's client's employment claims constituted extortion.  Extortion is the threat to reveal damaging information if money isn't paid.  There is no need to prove that the threat has been carried out.  Extortion is not protected speech.  Flatley v. Mauro (2006)… Read More

Owners of adjoining apartments mediated Doe's civil harassment prevention action, reaching an agreement that provided, among other things, that the parties agree not to disparage one another.  This decision holds that read in light of the limited nature of the action and surrounding circumstances, the provision could not reasonably be read to ban Doe from saying negative things about Olson… Read More

A defendant that files an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike under CCP 425.16 may seek attorney fees (based on prevailing on the Anti-SLAPP motion) in one of three ways:  as part of the Anti-SLAPP motion, by a post-judgment memorandum of costs, or by a post-judgment motion for an attorney fee award.  This decision holds that if the defendant chooses either of… Read More

The trial court erred in granting defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this defamation action.  Defendant was a competitor of plaintiff in selling life insurance and wealth management services to Chinese and Chinese-American clients.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant had falsely told insurance agents and one client that plaintiff was dishonest and unethical in her business practices and falsified insurance documents.  Before… Read More

Statements made in 8-K and 10-Q reports filed with the SEC are protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)(2)) as statements “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by [an] official proceeding.”  Statements made during earnings calls with investors and analysts about a public company's financial projections are also protected under CCP 425.16(e)(4) since they are… Read More

Statements made in a 10-K report filed with the SEC are protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)(2)) as statements “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by [an] official proceeding.”  That was particularly so in this case where the 10-K report addressed issues that the SEC was then investigating. Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion in this suit over alleged misappropriation of ideas for a proposed TV show.  To warrant protection under CCP 425.16(e)(4), the conduct out of which the suit arises must not only be in furtherance of the exercise of free speech but also concern a matter of public interest.  Here, acts done in creating… Read More

In this defamation case by a real estate developer against a political consultant, the trial court correctly denied the consultant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  While the allegedly defamatory political campaign mailers that the consultant prepared were protected activity, the developer proved a probability of success on his defamation claim.  The mailers stated that the developer "wants his money back" directly under factual… Read More

The trial court correctly excluded most of a declaration by Synchrony Bank's litigation assistant which attempted to show that plaintiff had agreed to the arbitration provision of the bank's credit card agreement.  Though the declaration attached copies of account statements and different versions of the credit card agreement containing the arbitration clause, it did not attach any record showing the… Read More

This suit by one drug company against its competitor for the latter's attempts to derail FDA approval of the plaintiff's drug gave rise to an Anti-SLAPP motion.  The decision holds that the defendant's citizen's petition with the FDA seeking to prevent FDA approval of plaintiff's drug was protected activity under CCP 425.16(e) and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine shielded defendant from… Read More

Hoffman's recordation of an abstract of judgment against Weeden's property was protected activity under CCP 425.16(e), satisfying his Anti-SLAPP motion's first prong.  The litigation privilege also shielded Hoffman from liability on Weeden's claim for slander of title, and that cause of action was properly stricken.  However, the litigation privilege did not apply to or bar Weeden's claims to quiet title… Read More

Plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to establish a probability of success on his defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims to overcome defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  Plaintiff is a world record holder in a number of computer arcade games.  Defendant facilitates video game competitions and runs a website with leaderboards showing top scorers on the games.  After receiving a complaint from… Read More

Over a dissent, this decision holds that the trial court properly denied Dae's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike Traver's probate petition to declare that Dae had violated a no contest clause by filing an earlier petition challenging Traver's acts as trustee.  Dae's petition was protected conduct, but Traver introduced evidence sufficient to show that he had a probability of success on… Read More

Plaintiff runs two bakery stores in Los Angeles.  It baked a birthday cake for defendant's child.  Defendant, who is a celebrity, objected to some of the icing on the cake, saying it looked like pills.  He published scathing reviews of plaintiff's bakeries on the Internet, leading to plaintiff's losing customers and business profits.  Plaintiff sued for defamation.  This decision holds… Read More

On appeal from a prior order on an Anti-SLAPP motion, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to grant the motion as to certain paragraphs of one cause of action.  The trial court then granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, but with leave to amend.  Plaintiff's amended complaint again alleged some of the protected conduct which… Read More

An Anti-SLAPP motion to strike under CCP 425.16 may only be brought against causes of action seeking affirmative relief, not against defensive pleadings such as affirmative defenses.  Like any other affirmative defense, an offset is not subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Read More

A statement of economic interests (Form 700) that California public officials must file is a "political work" for purposes of CCP 425.17(d)(2), and thus any claim arising from its creation, dissemination, exhibition, advertisement, or other similar promotion is not subject to CCP 425.17(b) which exempts from CCP 425.16 suits brought in the public interest.  This means that a claim based… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion in this qui tam insurance fraud action against a doctor for preparing fraudulent patient medical reports and billing statements in support of insurance claims.  The billing statements and medical reports were prepared in the ordinary course of the doctor's business and not in serious contemplation of lawsuits, so they were not protected… Read More

Though the filming and exhibition of a public television reality show regarding persons aspiring to be models was entitled to protection under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)), the plaintiff, a real, well-known model, presented enough evidence to show a probability of success on her claims for invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and misappropriation of her… Read More

This decision states that an arbitrator may not consider an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, but it finds that the arbitrator's error in granting such a motion was harmless.  At the second stage of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, the arbitrator had to consider the merits of the defendant's cross-complaint.  The arbitrator found that the litigation privilege (Civ. Code 47(b)) barred the cross-complaint. … Read More