This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...


    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
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 4DCA/3 May 10, 2024
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 6DCA May 10, 2024
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 5DCA Apr. 29, 2024
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 2DCA/4 Apr. 24, 2024
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 2DCA/8 Apr. 23, 2024
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 2DCA/8 Apr. 19, 2024
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 2DCA/8 Apr. 2, 2024
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 2DCA/8 Apr. 1, 2024
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 5DCA Mar. 29, 2024
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 4DCA/3 Feb. 13, 2024
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 3DCA Jan. 26, 2024
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 1DCA/4 Jan. 10, 2024
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 4DCA/2 Jan. 8, 2024
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 2DCA/8 Dec. 29, 2023
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 1DCA/4 Dec. 21, 2023
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 1DCA/4 Dec. 4, 2023
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 4DCA/3 Nov. 21, 2023
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 4DCA/3 Oct. 26, 2023
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 4DCA/3 Oct. 24, 2023
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 2DCA/8 Oct. 23, 2023
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 9th Sep. 22, 2023
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 2DCA/8 Sep. 15, 2023
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 California Courts of Appeal Aug. 25, 2023
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 2DCA/5 Jul. 27, 2023
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 2DCA/1 Jul. 19, 2023
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 2DCA/1 Jul. 3, 2023
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 2DCA/1 Jun. 30, 2023
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 4DCA/1 Jun. 7, 2023
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 2DCA/8 Jun. 6, 2023
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 2DCA/4 May 12, 2023