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
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
Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Pacific Dredge
Plaintiff's claim did not meet anti-SLAPP statute's minimal merit second prong since it was preempted by the Coast Guard's determination of maritime vessel eligibility. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Mar. 23, 2022
Pech v. Doniger
Legal counsel regarding prospective litigation and obligations under a fee agreement with a prior attorney were protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/5 Feb. 23, 2022
Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP
Attorney's escalating series of threats, in separate emails, transformed legitimate settlement demands into unprotected extortion. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Jan. 28, 2022
Xu v. Huang
Defendant's false statements regarding competitor's business practices fell squarely within the commercial speech exemption from anti-SLAPP protection. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/1 Jan. 13, 2022
Catlin Insurance Company v. Danko Meredith Law Firm
Absent a pending fee request, the trial court was not required to rule on the merits of a mooted anti-SLAPP motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 Jan. 13, 2022
Sugarman v. Brown
Statements in an annual 10-K reports filed with the Securities Exchange Commission are protected activity subject to anti-SLAPP provisions. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Dec. 29, 2021
Sugarman v. Benett
Statements made by bank representatives in forms filed with the Securities Exchange Commission are protected activities as matters under review by the SEC. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Dec. 29, 2021
Edward v. Ellis
Under the anti-SLAPP statute, in a libel action involving a limited public figure, plaintiffs need only establish a probability they can prove actual malice and that may be proven through circumstantial evidence. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Dec. 16, 2021
Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC
The allegedly misappropriated creative aspects of a writer's television pilot did not warrant anti-SLAPP protection. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/7 Dec. 16, 2021
Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
Statements made to investors were not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because they fell under the statute's commercial speech exemption. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Nov. 19, 2021
Weeden v. Hoffman
In the context of protected activity, the litigation privilege defense can be raised against tort claims, but not breach of contract claims. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Oct. 15, 2021
Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies
Donkey Kong record holder provided sufficient evidence for his defamation claim to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Oct. 14, 2021
Dae v. Traver
There was 'minimal merit' to avoid being struck as SLAPP when a petition challenged provisions in a family trust containing a no contest clause. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/2 Sep. 29, 2021
Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
Defendant's statements were not made in connection with an issue of 'candy confusion' but were aimed to whip up a crowd for vengeful retribution against a bakery. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Sep. 7, 2021
Modification: Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Aug. 31, 2021
Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates
Second anti-SLAPP motion relying on the law of the case was appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge paragraphs in amended complaint that were previously struck by appellate court. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/1 Aug. 25, 2021
Morris Cerullo World Evangelism v. Newport Harbor Offices etc.
Anti-SLAPP motion may not be directed to affirmative defense. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Aug. 20, 2021
Gallano v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC
Plaintiff established probability of prevailing on her Labor Code Section 2802 claim sufficient to survive defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/1 Aug. 18, 2021
Herring Networks v. Maddow
Exaggerated statement, cushioned within undisputed news story could not reasonably be understood to imply assertion of objective fact in order to amount to defamation. 		Anti-SLAPP 9th Aug. 18, 2021
Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Aug. 3, 2021
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.