| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
G063037
|
Sandoval v. Pali Institute
Trial court erred in completely denying camping company's anti-SLAPP motion when some of plaintiff camp attendees' claims involved protected "public debate" speech: gender-identity discussions. |
Anti-SLAPP, Education |
|
T. Delaney | Aug. 15, 2025 |
|
B340986
|
Ramirez v. McCormack
Because plaintiff's claims against defendant attorney involved litigation-related speech, trial court erred in denying defendant attorney's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Attorneys, Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Aug. 12, 2025 |
|
A169917
|
Michael K. v. Cho
Attorney's rebuttal contesting client's husband's chargeback challenge to her legal fees was protected by litigation privilege under the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Attorneys, Anti-SLAPP |
|
G. Burns | Jul. 30, 2025 |
|
A171466
|
Wong v. Dong
Interlocutory appeal was unavailable from order denying special motion to strike malicious prosecution claim subsequently filed by original target of a strategic lawsuit against public participation. |
Anti-SLAPP, Civil Procedure |
|
G. Burns | Jun. 24, 2025 |
|
A169997
|
Mora v. Menjivar
A supporting memorandum of points and authorities is a necessary constituent part of a "special motion" for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statutory deadline. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Smiley | Jun. 16, 2025 |
|
B333481
|
Sexton v. Apple Studios LLC
Trial court erroneously denied Apple Studio's anti-SLAPP motion against actor whose offer was withdrawn after he refused to comply with the studio's COVID vaccination requirement. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 1, 2025 |
|
A166007
|
Six4Three v. Facebook
Anti-SLAPP motion was appropriately granted against developer seeking to use defendant Facebook's photo data for an app allowing users to search for photos of people in swimsuits. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Brown | Mar. 14, 2025 |
|
D084820
|
Callister v. James B. Church & Associates
Failure to advise a client to file a protective claim for a refund was not a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP, Trust and Estates |
|
J. McConnell | Jan. 23, 2025 |
|
D082750
|
Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix
Request for monetary relief did not preclude the public interest exception to California's anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Kelety | Dec. 12, 2024 |
|
A167764
|
Modification: Littlefield v. Littlefield
Anti-SLAPP statute mandated granting of attorney's fees where motion was frivolous, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that plaintiff's petition sought to impose liability based on any protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Goldman | Dec. 6, 2024 |
|
A167764
|
Littlefield v. Littlefield
Anti-SLAPP statute mandated granting of attorney's fees where motion was frivolous, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that plaintiff's petition sought to impose liability based on any protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Goldman | Nov. 19, 2024 |
|
F086904
|
LVNV Funding v. Rodriguez
Because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows consumers wrongly sued over a debt to pursue a claim, debt collector's anti-SLAPP motion against mistakenly-identified consumer was improperly granted. |
Consumer Law, Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Snauffer | Nov. 14, 2024 |
|
A167118
|
Osborne v. Pleasanton Automotive Co., LP
Employee letter to human resources complaining of workplace harassment was privileged and therefore could not be the basis of libel and slander claims. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Stewart | Nov. 1, 2024 |
|
E079078
|
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell
Public interest exemption to anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because no public interest was advanced by suing individual defendants for relief that only defendant Water District could provide. |
Anti-SLAPP, Municipal Law |
|
M. Raphael | Oct. 15, 2024 |
|
B325563
|
Dignity Health v. Mounts
Granting anti-SLAPP special motion to strike was proper where surgeon failed to demonstrate probability of prevailing because hospital's adverse actions were shielded by the litigation and common interest privileges. |
Anti-SLAPP, Health Care |
|
K. Yegan | Sep. 19, 2024 |
|
A168333
|
Modification: Taylor v. Tesla, Inc.
Despite pending parallel litigation, refusal to respond to employee record requests under the Labor Code was not protected conduct subject to the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP, Employment Law |
|
J. Streeter | Sep. 4, 2024 |
|
A168333
|
Taylor v. Tesla, Inc.
Despite pending parallel litigation, refusal to respond to employee record requests under the Labor Code was not protected conduct subject to the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP, Employment Law |
|
J. Streeter | Aug. 12, 2024 |
|
B325299
|
WasteXperts, Inc. v. The City of Los Angeles
Declaratory relief claim did not arise from protected prelitigation activity where the dispute would exist even if defendant had not sent prelitigation correspondence. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Zukin | Jul. 15, 2024 |
|
23-15260
|
Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc.
Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because database containing professional contact information did not meet requirements to overcome public interest exemption. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Clifton | Jul. 9, 2024 |
|
B323878
|
Luo v. Volokh
Plaintiff's restraining order petition was properly stricken as a strategic lawsuit against public participation targeting defendant's writings about her history of pseudonymous litigation. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Jun. 27, 2024 |
|
G062338
|
Bui v. Ky
Plaintiff, wife of a local politician, was not a limited-purpose public figure who needed to show defendants acted with malice in their anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Delaney | May 10, 2024 |
|
H049873
|
Bassi v. Bassi
Domestic violence restraining order was not struck even though some of anti-SLAPP movant's activity was protected because restraining order petition had requisite minimal merit. |
Anti-SLAPP, Family Law |
|
A. Danner | May 10, 2024 |
|
F084700M
|
Modification: Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto
Doctor was not precluded from bringing second lawsuit because the issues in the fee order and anti-SLAPP order were not identical. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Poochigian | Apr. 29, 2024 |
|
B316971
|
Norman v. Ross
Trial court erroneously denied defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion, where plaintiff's claims about allegedly stolen TV idea arose from defendants' protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
A. Collins | Apr. 24, 2024 |
|
B317061
|
Dubac v. Itkoff
Homeowners' statements to their HOA were not made in connection with a public issue of public interest because they were private name-calling made to a handful of people. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 23, 2024 |
|
B324368
|
Lugo v. Pixior, LLC
Independent police investigation shielded former employer from liability for malicious prosecution claim even though one of its employees had provided false testimony at a preliminary hearing. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 19, 2024 |
|
B327668
|
Gazal v. Echeverry
Plaintiff's fraud claims did not arise from protected speech, but rather from the alleged misconduct that occurred after defendant encouraged plaintiff to donate. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Apr. 2, 2024 |
|
B323356
|
Medallion Film LLC v. Loeb & Loeb LLP
Letter from attorney with alleged misrepresentations was not protected prelitigation conduct because it was a request to avoid litigation. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Stratton | Apr. 1, 2024 |
|
F084700
|
Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto
Doctor was not precluded from bringing second lawsuit because the issues in the fee order and anti-SLAPP order were not identical. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Poochigian | Mar. 29, 2024 |
|
G061535
|
BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc.
Because company's press releases met commercial speech exemption, trial court's ruling granting anti-SLAPP motion was improper. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Feb. 13, 2024 |
For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424. To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com