California Courts of Appeal
Jan. 14, 2017
State Supreme Court closes an anti-SLAPP loophole
The court said that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a claim does not preclude a court from granting a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, or from awarding statutory attorney fees and costs to the defendant. By Adam J. Regele and Shiraz D. Tangri
Adam Regele
associate
Meyers Nave
land use and environmental law
555 12th St Ste 1500
Oakland , CA 94607
Phone: (510) 808-2000
Email: aregele@meyersnave.com
UC Hastings
Adam Regele is an associate in the Oakland office of Meyers Nave. He focuses on land use and environmental matters and may be reached at (510) 808-2000
The California Supreme Court began 2017 with another significant anti-SLAPP decision, confirming the broad reach of the state's statute designed to protect freedom of expression. In Barry v. State Bar of California, 2017 DJDAR 83 (Jan. 5, 2017), the high court ruled that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a claim does not preclude a court from granting a special motion to strike under the a...
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