Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Anti-SLAPP

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The Anti-SLAPP statute protects the defendant, an employee of plaintiff, from plaintiff’s breach of contract action arising from the employee’s decision to file an employment lawsuit, notwithstanding the arbitration clause in his employment agreement. Read More

Ads for musical, political or artistic works are not categorically excluded from protection under the Anti-SLAPP statute, but still must concern a matter of public interest to be protected; here, an ad for Michael Jackson’s posthumous record album was protected because its claim Jackson was the lead singer on three tracks addressed a matter of public interest. Read More

Civ. Code 1942.5(d) and (h), which grant a tenant a cause of action for a landlord's retaliatory eviction create an implied exception to the litigation privilege since otherwise the anti-retaliation statute would be rendered toothless; so tenant survived landlord’s Anti-SLAPP motion. Read More

Under Civil Code 47(b)’s divorce exception, ex-wife’s allegedly defamatory statements about a nanny in a declaration filed in her marital dissolution proceeding are not protected by the litigation privilege. Read More

The Legislature directed the Inspector General to investigate the treatment of prisoners at the High Desert prison, so the IG’s office should have won its Anti-SLAPP motion when it got sued for interrogating police officers, allegedly in violation of the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights Act.  Read More

Legal malpractice actions generally are not SLAPPs even though much evidence to prove the malpractice claim involves actions taken in the prosecution or defense of the underlying action. Read More

Defendant’s complaint about plaintiff to the private Certified Financial Planners Board of Standards is not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute since the Board is neither a government agency nor a public forum. Read More

The trial court properly granted defendant landlord's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff's claim that the landlord violated Santa Monica's anti-harassment ordinance by filing an unlawful detainer complaint against the plaintiff which supposedly lacked sufficient factual and legal support. Read More

Defendant was entitled to Anti-SLAPP protection after plaintiff sued it for defamation and interference with economic advantage based on defendant’s activities in lobbying local government to disallow plaintiff’s proposed subdivision. Read More

An employer could not pursue a lawsuit against former employee’s lawyer for disclosing, in course of False Claims Act suit, documents that the employee had taken with him after being fired. Read More

In the anti-SLAPP context, if a complaint itself shows that a claim arises from protected conduct, a moving party may rely on the plaintiff's allegations alone in making the showing necessary under prong one without submitting supporting evidence. Read More

1 4 5 6 7 8 9