Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B309364
|
Sanchez v. Bezos
In a defamation suit, reporters' statements to plaintiff that were recounted in plaintiff's declaration were inadmissible hearsay and thus could not be considered for anti-SLAPP purposes. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Jul. 5, 2022 |
B312831
|
Bowen v. Lin
The trial court erred when it concluded that attorney's breach of contract cause of action against his clients did not arise from protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Tangeman | Jun. 24, 2022 |
B302558
|
Ratcliff v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
Allegations that the Archdiocese ratified a priest's molestation of children could not be stricken under the anti-SLAPP law because the allegedly protected activity was incidental to the complaint. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Rubin | Jun. 17, 2022 |
D078217
|
Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Pacific Dredge
Plaintiff's claim did not meet anti-SLAPP statute's minimal merit second prong since it was preempted by the Coast Guard's determination of maritime vessel eligibility. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. McConnell | Mar. 23, 2022 |
B309781
|
Pech v. Doniger
Legal counsel regarding prospective litigation and obligations under a fee agreement with a prior attorney were protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Moor | Feb. 23, 2022 |
G059477
|
Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP
Attorney's escalating series of threats, in separate emails, transformed legitimate settlement demands into unprotected extortion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Goethals | Jan. 28, 2022 |
B311883
|
Xu v. Huang
Defendant's false statements regarding competitor's business practices fell squarely within the commercial speech exemption from anti-SLAPP protection. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Crandall | Jan. 13, 2022 |
A160358
|
Catlin Insurance Company v. Danko Meredith Law Firm
Absent a pending fee request, the trial court was not required to rule on the merits of a mooted anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Streeter | Jan. 13, 2022 |
B308318
|
Sugarman v. Brown
Statements in an annual 10-K reports filed with the Securities Exchange Commission are protected activity subject to anti-SLAPP provisions. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Dec. 29, 2021 |
B307753
|
Sugarman v. Benett
Statements made by bank representatives in forms filed with the Securities Exchange Commission are protected activities as matters under review by the SEC. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Grimes | Dec. 29, 2021 |
G059523
|
Edward v. Ellis
Under the anti-SLAPP statute, in a libel action involving a limited public figure, plaintiffs need only establish a probability they can prove actual malice and that may be proven through circumstantial evidence. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
T. Goethals | Dec. 16, 2021 |
B305066
|
Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC
The allegedly misappropriated creative aspects of a writer's television pilot did not warrant anti-SLAPP protection. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
D. Perluss | Dec. 16, 2021 |
D077984
|
Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
Statements made to investors were not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because they fell under the statute's commercial speech exemption. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Huffman | Nov. 19, 2021 |
D078112
|
Weeden v. Hoffman
In the context of protected activity, the litigation privilege defense can be raised against tort claims, but not breach of contract claims. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Aaron | Oct. 15, 2021 |
B308889
|
Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies
Donkey Kong record holder provided sufficient evidence for his defamation claim to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
S. Ohta | Oct. 14, 2021 |
B305834
|
Dae v. Traver
There was 'minimal merit' to avoid being struck as SLAPP when a petition challenged provisions in a family trust containing a no contest clause. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Lui | Sep. 29, 2021 |
B305797
|
Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
Defendant's statements were not made in connection with an issue of 'candy confusion' but were aimed to whip up a crowd for vengeful retribution against a bakery. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Wiley | Sep. 7, 2021 |
D076923
|
Modification: Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Huffman | Aug. 31, 2021 |
B303978
|
Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates
Second anti-SLAPP motion relying on the law of the case was appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge paragraphs in amended complaint that were previously struck by appellate court. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
H. Bendix | Aug. 25, 2021 |
G058836
|
Morris Cerullo World Evangelism v. Newport Harbor Offices etc.
Anti-SLAPP motion may not be directed to affirmative defense. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Fybel | Aug. 20, 2021 |
A158391
|
Gallano v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC
Plaintiff established probability of prevailing on her Labor Code Section 2802 claim sufficient to survive defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
G. Sanchez | Aug. 18, 2021 |
20-55579
|
Herring Networks v. Maddow
Exaggerated statement, cushioned within undisputed news story could not reasonably be understood to imply assertion of objective fact in order to amount to defamation. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Smith | Aug. 18, 2021 |
D076923
|
Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Huffman | Aug. 3, 2021 |
G060034
|
Exline v. Gillmor
Public official's Form 700 filings falls within Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.17(d)(2)'s exception to public interest exemption to anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Fybel | Aug. 2, 2021 |
S244148
|
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
Disciplinary actions imposed through peer review do not qualify as protected activity under anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Kruger | Jul. 30, 2021 |
G059446
|
Modification: People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin
Medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims were defendant's usual course of business and may not have resulted in litigation; thus, trial court properly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Jul. 23, 2021 |
G059446
|
People ex rel. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Rubin
Medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims were defendant's usual course of business and may not have resulted in litigation; thus, trial court properly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Moore | Jul. 14, 2021 |
B304642
|
Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions
Under anti-SLAPP statute, illegal conduct must be based on defendant's concession or uncontroverted and conclusive evidence. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Stratton | Jul. 1, 2021 |
B307235
|
Modification: Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
Trial court's order granting plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant's cross-claim for fraud was vacated because defendant showed probability of prevailing on that claim. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Tangeman | Jun. 25, 2021 |
B307235
|
Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
Trial court's order granting plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant's cross-claim for fraud was vacated because defendant showed probability of prevailing on that claim. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Tangeman | Jun. 7, 2021 |