Jun. 9, 2012
Anti-SLAPP: Why we need a federal counterpart
Forum shopping among state courts remains a viable option for litigants seeking to avoid one state's anti-SLAPP protections. By Mark Goldowitz, Jeremy B. Rosen and Josephine K. Mason of Horvitz & Levy LLP
Jeremy B. Rosen
Partner
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 W Olive Ave Fl 8
Burbank , CA 91505-4681
Phone: (818) 995-0800
Email: jrosen@horvitzlevy.com
Duke Univ School of Law
Jeremy was previously nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Jeremy B. Rosen
Partner
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 W Olive Ave Fl 8
Burbank , CA 91505-4681
Phone: (818) 995-0800
Email: jrosen@horvitzlevy.com
Duke Univ School of Law
Jeremy was previously nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
In 1992, California became one of the first states to enact an anti-SLAPP statute. The statute provides a procedure for the early dismissal of causes of action that arise from acts in furtherance of the rights of petition or free speech. Now, approximately 30 states and territories have anti-SLAPP laws, but there is currently no federal law to provide uniform protection for free speech and petitioning acti...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In