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.

One heir’s suit against another, which sought to disinherit a co-heir defendant under the no contest clause in the decedent's trust, is a suit based on protected activity and thus is subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, since the defendant’s prior contest was a protected judicial proceeding. Read More

Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied as the claim was based on defendant’s unprotected decision to terminate the plaintiff distributor rather than on the defendant’s later protected acts in a statutory arbitration proceeding concerning the termination. Read More

The gravamen or principal thrust analysis still governs whether a cause of action is subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike; so if the gist or gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint was protected conduct, the Anti-SLAPP motion should be granted even if the complaint also alleged some non-protected conduct.   Read More

Facebook was entitled to an Anti-SLAPP dismissal of claim based on third-party postings on a Facebook page about plaintiff’s sleep-deprived drivers causing serious traffic accidents, a matter of public concern.   Read More

Lender's alleged failure to (1) provide reinstatement amounts in response to a defaulted borrower's request or (2) respond to plaintiff's claimed tender of arrearages under the deed of trust, were protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute, but only because they occurred in the context of the borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding.   Read More

Plaintiff could not sue defendant for defamation after defendant rated plaintiff’s website as carrying adult content and copyright-infringing material, since these ratings addressed matters of public interest and were therefore protected by the Anti-SLAPP statute.   Read More

A whistleblower suit under Health and Safety Code 1278.5 cannot be stricken under the Anti-SLAPP statute, since defendant’s alleged wrongful purpose or motive in firing plaintiff was not protected Anti-SLAPP activity.   Read More

Defendant movie studio’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied as plaintiff’s implied-in-fact contract claim was based on the unprotected act of not paying him for his story idea, not on the protected act of producing the film based on his idea.  Read More

An Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted against suit alleging that creditor violated state and federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts by recording an abstract of judgment creditor had obtained against plaintiff’s former domestic partner.  Read More

Although celebrity defendant’s comments about celebrity plaintiff ex-girlfriend’s medical history were matters of public interest and received Anti-SLAPP protection, his posting of a sonogram and medical records on social media was a bridge too far even in the relatively lenient context of celebrity gossip.  Read More

Employer’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted in response to terminated CEO’s defamation claim, since the allegedly defamatory press release stated only that a third party investigation of allegations against the CEO had been undertaken and that he was terminated as a result of that investigation.  Read More

On an Anti-SLAPP motion attacking a “mixed” claim alleging both protected and unprotected conduct, the allegations of protected conduct are viewed separately, and if not merely incidental, are stricken unless the plaintiff shows a probability of succeeding on the claim based on those allegations alone. Read More

Statements and conduct during a hospital’s peer review of a staff physician are protected under the Anti-SLAPP statute, and cannot be challenged by the physician unless he has successfully sought relief in court from the peer review’s conclusion.  Read More

A homeowner’s application to have a homeowner’s association enforce a tree-trimming covenant against his neighbor was protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute, and the neighbor’s quiet title claim had no chance of success after the homeowner withdrew the application thus removing any cloud on the neighbor’s title.  Read More

Trial court properly granted Anti-SLAPP motion filed by State of California in lawsuit brought by individual who was claiming the State threatened him with arrest or prosecution if he failed to register as a sex offender.  Read More

Anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff actor’s complaint was properly granted in favor of defendant actor-director with respect to racial discrimination claims alleging defendant had called plaintiff the N-word on set.  Read More

Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied when he was sued for secretly tape recording, and later publishing, a conversation that took place over dinner at a restaurant with plaintiff’s president, because even though this was protected activity, plaintiff showed a probability of success on its claims for, among other things, invasion of privacy.  Read More

Based on a recently-enacted Oregon statute requiring courts to enter a limited, immediately appealable judgment when denying an Anti-SLAPP motion, the Ninth Circuit now has jurisdiction to consider appeals from orders denying Anti-SLAPP motions under Oregon law.  Read More

1 5 6 7 8 9