Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
C095426
|
Miszkewycz v. County of Placer
Defendant was not required to comply with Rules of Court Rule 3.1322 (standards for motions to strike) for its anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Robie | Jan. 26, 2024 |
A164867
|
Modification: Green Tree Headlands LLC v. Crawford
Anti-SLAPP motion in malicious prosecution suit should have been granted where defendant attorney made questionable calls, but it could not be said that no reasonable lawyer would have advanced the claims he put forth. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Streeter | Jan. 10, 2024 |
E078871
|
Moten v. Transworld Systems Inc.
Anti-SLAPP motion to strike should not have been granted based on litigation privilege where plaintiff's claims were based on violations of the Rosenthal Act because litigation privilege did not apply. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
D. Miller | Jan. 8, 2024 |
B313864
|
Paglia & Associates Construction v. Hamilton
Litigation privilege did not extend to defamatory statements posted online because they were merely attempts to communicate with the public and lacked any functional connection to the proceedings. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Dec. 29, 2023 |
A164867
|
Green Tree Headlands LLC v. Crawford
Anti-SLAPP motion in malicious prosecution suit should have been granted where defendant attorney made questionable calls, but it could not be said that no reasonable lawyer would have advanced the claims he put forth. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Streeter | Dec. 21, 2023 |
A165224
|
Doe v. Ledor
Defendant's emails to Darthmouth regarding a fellow high school senior's student body election fraud were not protected anti-SLAPP speech because they never contributed to the public conversation on the election. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Brown | Dec. 4, 2023 |
G061535
|
Modification: BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc.
Trial court erred in granting anti-SLAPP motion because the challenged statements--allegedly confidential information regarding a soured business agreement--fell under the statute's commercial speech exemption. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Nov. 21, 2023 |
G061693
|
Mary's Kitchen v. City of Orange
Anti-SLAPP protection did not apply to city council's cancellation of license agreement where the plaintiff's claims were based on the city council's ordinary business of governance, not its protected speech. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Sanchez | Oct. 26, 2023 |
G061535
|
BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc.
Trial court erred in granting anti-SLAPP motion because the challenged statements--allegedly confidential information regarding a soured business agreement--fell under the statute's commercial speech exemption. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Oct. 24, 2023 |
B312337
|
Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Law firm engaged under public university executive order to investigate workplace misconduct was prevailing party for anti-SLAPP fee-shifting because its conduct was related to an official proceeding authorized by law. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Oct. 23, 2023 |
22-35305
|
Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc.
The public interest anti-SLAPP exemption applied to plaintiff because her individual relief would not exceed or differ from the relief sought on behalf of the general public. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. McKeown | Sep. 22, 2023 |
B326887
|
Li v. Jenkins
Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied since there was no "functional relationship" between excluding an executive producer of a popular docuseries and the public interest in the project and its themes. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Sep. 15, 2023 |
G061238
|
Iloh v. Regents of the University of California
Professor's petition to prevent disclosure of her communications with academic journals arose from protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute because the disclosure request was a newsgathering effort. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
N. Zeltzer | Aug. 25, 2023 |
B320483
|
Park v. Nazari
The court affirmed the dismissal of defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to strike the entire complaint because defendants did not identify which specific claims for relief arose from protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Baker | Jul. 27, 2023 |
B321087M
|
Modification: Divine Food and Catering v. Western Diocese of the Armenian
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution action had minimal merit since court's statements regarding defendants' purported oral lease were not a judgment or verdict sufficient to trigger the interim adverse judgment rule. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Jul. 19, 2023 |
B320658
|
Brown v. City of Inglewood
Inglewood treasurer's retaliation claims against the City and City Counsel arose out of protected voting activity and did not have minimal merit because she was not an employee. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
F. Rothschild | Jul. 3, 2023 |
B321087
|
Divine Food and Catering v. Western Diocese of the Armenian
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution action had minimal merit since court's statements regarding defendants' purported oral lease were not a judgment or verdict sufficient to trigger the interim adverse judgment rule. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Jun. 30, 2023 |
A166898
|
Hastings College Conservation Committee v. Faigman
Though legislation changing Hastings Law School's name could adversely affect protected speech, anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because the legislation, not the protected speech, was the basis of the lawsuit. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Goldman | Jun. 7, 2023 |
B312937M
|
Modification: Collins v. Waters
Congresswoman's anti-SLAPP motion was granted in error because plaintiff had made a preliminary evidentiary showing that he could prevail in his underlying defamation suit. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Jun. 6, 2023 |
B313105
|
Nirschl v. Schiller
Hirer's statements about a nanny to her agency about her termination were not protected statements made in anticipation of litigation because the threat of litigation was merely theoretical. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Fruin | May 12, 2023 |
B312937
|
Collins v. Waters
Congresswoman's anti-SLAPP motion was granted in error because plaintiff had made a preliminary evidentiary showing that he could prevail in his underlying defamation suit. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | May 11, 2023 |
20-16046
|
Gunn v. Drage
Federal courts ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion are entitled to rely on extrinsic evidence for both the first and second steps of the analysis. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
B. Cogan | Apr. 24, 2023 |