| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A167764
|
Littlefield v. Littlefield
Anti-SLAPP statute mandated granting of attorney's fees where motion was frivolous, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that plaintiff's petition sought to impose liability based on any protected activity. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
J. Goldman | Nov. 19, 2024 |
|
F086904
|
LVNV Funding v. Rodriguez
Because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows consumers wrongly sued over a debt to pursue a claim, debt collector's anti-SLAPP motion against mistakenly-identified consumer was improperly granted. |
Consumer Law, Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Snauffer | Nov. 14, 2024 |
|
A167118
|
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 |
|
T. Stewart | Nov. 1, 2024 |
|
E079078
|
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 |
|
M. Raphael | Oct. 15, 2024 |
|
B325563
|
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 |
|
K. Yegan | Sep. 19, 2024 |
|
A168333
|
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 |
|
J. Streeter | Sep. 4, 2024 |
|
A168333
|
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 |
|
J. Streeter | Aug. 12, 2024 |
|
B325299
|
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 |
|
H. Zukin | Jul. 15, 2024 |
|
23-15260
|
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 |
|
R. Clifton | Jul. 9, 2024 |
|
B323878
|
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 |
|
H. Bendix | Jun. 27, 2024 |
|
G062338
|
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 |
|
T. Delaney | May 10, 2024 |
|
H049873
|
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 |
|
A. Danner | May 10, 2024 |
|
F084700M
|
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 |
|
C. Poochigian | Apr. 29, 2024 |
|
B316971
|
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 |
|
A. Collins | Apr. 24, 2024 |
|
B317061
|
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 |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 23, 2024 |
|
B324368
|
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 |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 19, 2024 |
|
B327668
|
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 |
|
E. Grimes | Apr. 2, 2024 |
|
B323356
|
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 |
|
M. Stratton | Apr. 1, 2024 |
|
F084700
|
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 |
|
C. Poochigian | Mar. 29, 2024 |
|
G061535
|
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 |
|
E. Moore | Feb. 13, 2024 |
|
C095426
|
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 |
|
R. Robie | Jan. 26, 2024 |
|
A164867
|
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 |
|
J. Streeter | Jan. 10, 2024 |
|
E078871
|
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 |
|
D. Miller | Jan. 8, 2024 |
|
B313864
|
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 |
|
J. Wiley | Dec. 29, 2023 |
|
A164867
|
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 |
|
J. Streeter | Dec. 21, 2023 |
|
A165224
|
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 |
|
T. Brown | Dec. 4, 2023 |
|
G061535
|
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 |
|
E. Moore | Nov. 21, 2023 |
|
G061693
|
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 |
|
M. Sanchez | Oct. 26, 2023 |
|
G061535
|
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 |
|
E. Moore | Oct. 24, 2023 |
|
B312337
|
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 |
|
E. Grimes | Oct. 23, 2023 |
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