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
    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
Collins v. Waters
Congresswoman's anti-SLAPP motion was granted in error because plaintiff had made a preliminary evidentiary showing that he could prevail in his underlying defamation suit. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 May 11, 2023
Gunn v. Drage
Federal courts ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion are entitled to rely on extrinsic evidence for both the first and second steps of the analysis. 		Anti-SLAPP 9th Apr. 24, 2023
Durkin v. City and County of San Francisco
Property owner's anti-SLAPP motion was reversed because his protected petitioning activity did not constitute the factual allegations in appellants' petition for writ of mandate against San Francisco housing decisionmakers. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/3 Apr. 18, 2023
Billauer v. Escobar-Eck
Defendant established a probability of success on libel claim because plaintiff's social media posts asserted that defendant was an unscrupulous liar who would do anything to build a development project. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Mar. 2, 2023
Geragos v. Abelyan
The *Flatley* extortion exemption to protected representation communications does not apply where there is a material dispute about the allegedly extortionate communications. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Mar. 2, 2023
Water for Citizens of Weed California v. Churchwell White LLP
Anti-SLAPP motion was affirmed because plaintiffs did not establish law firm lacked probable cause to bring quiet title action based on a formal request to determine a corporation's water rights. 		Anti-SLAPP 3DCA Feb. 13, 2023
Starr v. Ashbrook
Allegations underlying claim of misused trust assets were not protected activities under anti-SLAPP statute because misusing trust assets is not in furtherance of a right of petition or free speech. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Jan. 30, 2023
Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Grp.
As the federal equivalent of the state's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires showing that the violation was material, the state statute also requires the same objective standard. 		Anti-SLAPP 6DCA Jan. 18, 2023
White v. Davis
Daughter's application for an elder abuse restraining order against her father's second wife and step-daughter survived an anti-SLAPP challenge because defendants' attempts to control the father were not protected activities. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/2 Jan. 9, 2023
Cordoba Corp. v. City of Industry
Trial court properly granted anti-SLAPP motion where the gravamen of dispute arose from a lawsuit, a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Jan. 5, 2023
Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley
Malicious prosecution claim was not subject to anti-SLAPP motion to strike where plaintiff demonstrated prior action lacked probable cause and was prosecuted with indifference, suggesting malice. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/2 Dec. 29, 2022
City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures
Anti-SLAPP motion to strike was properly denied because the motion, asserting that a theme park was an artistic work intended to be excepted from the commercial speech exemption, was devoid of merit. 		Anti-SLAPP 3DCA Dec. 22, 2022
Bishop v. The Bishop's School
Because termination letter was for private purposes only, not contributing to public discourse, it was not protected free speech activity under anti-SLAPP provisions. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Dec. 22, 2022
Flickinger v. Finwall
Counsel's prelitigation letter did not qualify as extortion that was unprotectable under Civil Code Section 425.16 because it did not fall outside the bounds of professional norms. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Dec. 1, 2022
Timothy W. v. Julie W.
Litigation privilege barred breach of oral contract claims in anti-SLAPP suit between divorcing couple. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Nov. 23, 2022
Young v. Midland Funding, LLC
Debtor plaintiff would likely prevail on the merits of her Rosenthal Act cause of action against creditor because plaintiff made a prima facie showing that she was not served with process by substituted service. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 Oct. 11, 2022
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39 v. Macy's, Inc.
Labor Code Section 1138's heightened standard requires clear, unequivocal, and convincing proof of actual misconduct participation or authorization by union leadership to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 Oct. 3, 2022
Li v. Jin
Defendant's application for tax-exempt status of alumni association was protected as a statement made during a "proceeding" under the anti-SLAPP statute since the IRS made discretionary determinations for each applicant. 		Anti-SLAPP 6DCA Sep. 20, 2022
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
Surgeon was not likely to prevail on retaliation claims against employer hospital because they were based on communicative statements protected by the litigation privilege. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Sep. 16, 2022
Manlin v. Milner
Improper diversion of LLC funds to pay litigation expenses did not arise from a protected activity. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/1 Sep. 9, 2022
CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Group, LLC
Operator of private prisons' implied defamation theory failed because writer's articles could not reasonably be understood as implying that it detained children separated from their parents in its facilities. 		Anti-SLAPP 9th Aug. 31, 2022
Geiser v. Kuhns
Although demonstration outside CEO's home implicated a private dispute, when considered in context, it could also be reasonably understood to implicate an issue of public interest as required for anti-SLAPP protection. 		Anti-SLAPP CASC Aug. 30, 2022
Frym v. 601 Main Street LLC
Trial court improperly denied attorney's fees on prevailing anti-SLAPP motions by reasoning that the separate motions could have been brought as one consolidated motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/5 Aug. 26, 2022
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment
Legal claims predicated on statements made to promote sales of an album were not subject to anti-SLAPP statute because they were quintessential commercial speech that was subject to regulation. 		Anti-SLAPP CASC Aug. 18, 2022
Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management Corp.
Anti-SLAPP motion was denied because the filing of the malicious prosecution lawsuit did not form the basis of respondent's retaliation claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/6 Aug. 8, 2022
Callanan v. Grizzly Designs, LLC
Defendant's cross-complaint was not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike because the underlying conduct, violating California labor laws, was not an activity in furtherance of the right to petition. 		Anti-SLAPP 3DCA Jul. 26, 2022
Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. Direct Action Everywhere
Advocacy organization's alleged liability must be premised on constitutionally protected activity, rather than merely adjacent to protected activity, to be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/1 Jul. 14, 2022
Sanchez v. Bezos
In a defamation suit, reporters' statements to plaintiff that were recounted in plaintiff's declaration were inadmissible hearsay and thus could not be considered for anti-SLAPP purposes. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/1 Jul. 5, 2022
Bowen v. Lin
The trial court erred when it concluded that attorney's breach of contract cause of action against his clients did not arise from protected activity. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/6 Jun. 24, 2022
Ratcliff v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
Allegations that the Archdiocese ratified a priest's molestation of children could not be stricken under the anti-SLAPP law because the allegedly protected activity was incidental to the complaint. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/5 Jun. 17, 2022
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.