Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
D076570
|
Dunning v. Johnson
Defendants' attorneys did not bring CEQA litigation with malice; thus, their anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. McConnell | May 17, 2021 |
B306283
|
Towner v. County of Ventura
Trial court erred in granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motion because County filed confidential personnel records without first complying with mandatory procedures for disclosure, which is illegal under Government Code Section 1222. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
G. Feuer | May 3, 2021 |
B302558
|
Ratcliff v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because plaintiffs used defendant's pending civil action and investigation to show defendant's ratification of tortious conduct. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Rubin | May 3, 2021 |
B302365
|
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company
Trial court properly denied appellant's anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiff established probability of prevailing on its fraud claim. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Stratton | Apr. 22, 2021 |
B299469
|
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez
Dismissal due to technical or procedural ground, such as pursuant to settlement agreement, is not considered favorable termination for purposes of malicious prosecution. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
L. Rubin | Apr. 21, 2021 |
E075582
|
Muddy Waters v. Superior Court
Trial court erred in denying defendant's special motion to strike based upon commercial speech exception. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
R. Fields | Apr. 8, 2021 |
A159246
|
Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista
City's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted because plaintiff could not prevail on his complaint that City wrongfully disclosed his personnel records pertaining to sustained findings of making false reports. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
I. Petrou | Mar. 18, 2021 |
D075648
|
Area 55 v. Nicholas & Tomasevic
For purposes of anti-SLAPP statute, trial court erred in ruling that Appellants did not demonstrate probability of prevailing on merits of their malicious prosecution claim. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Irion | Feb. 24, 2021 |
B302608
|
Hoang v. Tran
Respondent was collaterally estopped from claiming published article did not concern matter of public interest because identical issue was previously decided against him in prior proceeding. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
K. Yegan | Feb. 3, 2021 |
B297176
|
Trinity Risk Management v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions
Filing amended complaint does not render cross-complaint null; thus, anti-SLAPP motion to strike cross-complainants' defamation claim was not rendered moot. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Stratton | Jan. 19, 2021 |
D074804
|
Balla v. Hall
For readers to perceive defendants' advertisement as harmful to plaintiff's reputation, they would need outside context; thus, trial court should have granted defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
W. Dato | Jan. 8, 2021 |
D076183
|
Dziubla v. Piazza
Litigation privilege does not extend to statements that bear no reasonable relationship to any judicial proceedings on which privilege is assertedly based. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
W. Dato | Dec. 31, 2020 |
E073322
|
Changsha Metro Group Co. v. Xufeng
Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5(f)'s procedure was inapplicable to requests for attorney's fees in frivolous anti-SLAPP suits. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
D. Miller | Nov. 5, 2020 |
D075615
|
RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co.
Trial court properly granted defendant's anti-SLAPP motion because the filing of defendant's mechanic's lien constituted protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
W. Dato | Oct. 28, 2020 |
H044661
|
Modification: Reyes v. Kruger
Appellant's challenge to the order on anti-SLAPP motions was not cognizable on appeal from the judgment. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Premo | Oct. 23, 2020 |
H044661
|
Reyes v. Kruger
Appellant's challenge to the order on anti-SLAPP motions was not cognizable on appeal from the judgment. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Premo | Sep. 29, 2020 |
D076104
|
Murray v. Tran
Although alleged defamatory statements were of public concern, they were not made in connection with public discussion and thus not protected by anti-SLAPP statute. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Haller | Sep. 25, 2020 |
A157330
|
Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion had no merit because plaintiffs' complaint was not based on protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Richman | Sep. 21, 2020 |
B295937
|
Golden State Seafood, Inc. v. Schloss
Appellant's anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because respondent demonstrated likelihood of success on merits of its malicious prosecution claim. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Stratton | Aug. 10, 2020 |