Anti-SLAPP

Statements an attorney made to news media about a suit he filed on behalf of a client were protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute because the lawsuit and the attorney's statements about it involved matters of public interest such as the allegation that the defendants in that suit had implanted phony spinal implants in thousands of patients.  Read More

Even if the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it may grant the defendant's special Anti-SLAPP motion to strike und award the defendant attorney fees, since lack of jurisdiction is one of many possible non-merits-related reasons for holding, at the second stage of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, that the plaintiff has not shown a probability of success on the merits.  Read More

An anti-SLAPP motion is untimely if not filed within 60 days of service of the first complaint that pleads a cause of action coming within anti-SLAPP protection, unless the trial court—in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper—permits the motion to be filed at a later time.  Read More

An Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because the allegedly false accusation that plaintiff operated a single treatment facility without a required state license was not a matter of public concern and so was not protected speech.  Read More

Discussions and votes of board members at HOA board meetings are protected free speech under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, so a suit based on that conduct should have been stricken.  Read More

The trial court erred in granting a defendant news organization’s Anti-SLAPP motion in an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, since the challenged conduct involved allegedly wrongful adverse employment actions rather than the production or content of defendant’s news programs.  Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $30,000 in attorney fees to a defendant that had sought $152,000 for bringing a successful Anti-SLAPP motion, since there was substantial evidence to support reduction of the claimed hourly rate and claimed hours.  Read More

Even before completing the internal peer review process under Business & Professions Code 805-809.7, a doctor may bring a whistleblower action under Health & Safety Code 1278.5, which protects whistleblowers who report to authorities suspected unsafe patient care and conditions.  Read More

When a claim alleges no conduct by the moving defendant, it cannot arise from that defendant's protected conduct and so cannot be attacked by an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike.  Read More

An expert who prepared a report for a competitor of plaintiff concerning the percentage of construction and demolition trash that plaintiff recycled proved its report was speech protected under the Anti-SLAPP statute, since the recycling rate of waste disposal companies is a subject of intense state and local regulation and there did not need to be a present, on-going controversy… Read More

Trial court should have granted defendant attorney’s anti-SLAPP motion after he was sued for supposedly aiding and abetting the wrongful acts of his client (a landlord) by defending him in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff (a tenant).  Read More

Lawsuit over supposed concealing of information during settlement negotiations is properly characterized as an illegal SLAPP suit Read More

A complaint charging brother/trustee with wrongfully taking money from elderly mother and from family trust to fund litigation against plaintiff sister was not a SLAPP suit subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, except for the cause of action alleging wrongful conduct in filing and prosecuting the earlier suits.  Read More

A suit brought in a city’s name by a private attorney is not an enforcement action brought in the name of the People of the State of California by the Attorney General, or a district attorney or a city attorney acting as a public prosecutor and so is not exempt from the Anti-SLAPP statute.  Read More

A citizen suit against his city council was not a public interest suit exempted from Anti-SLAPP protections, since the citizen in question would have benefited personally from a decision in his favor.  Read More

An Anti-SLAPP motion may target allegations of protected activity that form the basis of a claim for relief even if the complaint also alleges unprotected activity as part of the same “cause of action.”  Read More

An attorney’s post-litigation handling of settlement funds is not protected litigation activity, so the attorney’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied.  Read More

A plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation suit against the University where she was a medical resident in anesthesiology did not arise from the University's protected activity in conducting proceedings leading to her discipline and ultimate termination, but rather from the University's allegedly wrongful (and unprotected) antecedent conduct in discriminating and retaliating against plaintiff, which in turn led to the protected disciplinary… Read More

Trial court properly denied Anti-SLAPP motion brought by defendants—JAMS and one of its mediators—since plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging misrepresentations in the mediator’s website biography arose from defendants’ advertising of services for the purpose of enticing purchasers, thus falling within the CCP 415.17(c) exception to the Anti-SLAPP statute.  Read More

Popular soft-porn star adduced prima facie proof that in publishing her picture with an article about HIV in the L.A. porn industry the defendant  news website edited her picture and its caption, making it more likely that the article would imply plaintiff had HIV, thus overcoming defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion in her defamation suit.  Read More