For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
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...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    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
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 1DCA/2 Nov. 1, 2024
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 4DCA/2 Oct. 15, 2024
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 2DCA/6 Sep. 19, 2024
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 1DCA/4 Sep. 4, 2024
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 1DCA/4 Aug. 12, 2024
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 2DCA/4 Jul. 15, 2024
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 9th Jul. 9, 2024
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 2DCA/1 Jun. 27, 2024
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
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.