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
Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
Anti-SLAPP statute cannot be invoked by a defendant whose assertedly protected activity is illegal as a matter of law. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/4 Jun. 23, 2020
Sandlin v. McLaughlin
Anti-SLAPP motion was not moot, public interest litigation exemption was inapplicable, and motion should have been granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Jun. 22, 2020
Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Co.
Allegations challenged by anti-SLAPP motion did not include any statement made in connection with an issue under consideration by judicial body. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 Jun. 22, 2020
Wittenberg v. Bornstein
Plaintiff failed to show minimal merit as to fiduciary duty and conspiracy allegations and therefore defendant's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/3 Jun. 15, 2020
Dorit v. Noe
MFAA proceedings qualify as 'official proceedings' and therefore cannot support malicious prosecution claim under anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 May 28, 2020
Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin
Anti-SLAPP statue's application to an initiated lawsuit does not necessarily mean its causes of action arose from protected activity. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/3 May 28, 2020
Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng
Proper procedure to follow for plaintiff's attorneys' fees request for opposing anti-SLAPP motion was procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 subdivision (a) and (c). 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/2 May 21, 2020
Yang v. Tenet Healthcare Inc.
Defendants' conduct arose from protected activity because their allegedly defamatory statements were made in connection with issue of public interest; thus, anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/2 May 12, 2020
Gruber v. Gruber
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim did not lack 'minimal merit' because defendants' claim in previous lawsuit lacked probable cause. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/2 May 6, 2020
Patel v. Chavez
Section 1983 does not preempt application of the anti-SLAPP statute to Section 1983 claims in state court. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/1 May 6, 2020
Spencer v. Mowat
Tortious acts appellants were alleged to have conspired in did not involve protected speech or petitioning activity. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/5 Mar. 26, 2020
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com
Trial court erred in denying defendant's anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiffs had not demonstrated a probability in prevailing on their libel claim. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Mar. 24, 2020
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Hass
Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because there were disputed material facts that had to be resolved before court could determine whether defendants had probable cause to pursue litigation. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Mar. 18, 2020
Kinsella v. Kinsella
Trial court erred in determining that plaintiff did not establish requisite probability of prevailing on merits of his claim against defendant; thus, order granting anti-SLAPP motion was vacated. 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/1 Feb. 21, 2020
Jeppson v. Ley
Internet posts on community blog about feud between three neighbors did not transform otherwise private dispute into matter of 'public interest' protected by Anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Feb. 3, 2020
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment
Appellants' challenged statements that Michael Jackson was the lead singer on three tracks of his posthumous album were sufficiently connected to an issue of public interest to warrant anti-SLAPP protection. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/2 Jan. 9, 2020
Modification: Long Beach Unified School Dist. v. Margaret Williams, LLC
Anti-SLAPP motion properly granted by trial court due to cross-claims arising out of protected activity, and the challenged claims lacking legal sufficiency due to unconscionability of a disputed indemnity provision. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/4 Jan. 3, 2020
Ojjeh v. Brown
Trial court erred in denying defendants anti-SLAPP motion after defendants allegedly failed to produce complete Syrian refugee documentary and solicited funds. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/3 Jan. 3, 2020
C.W. Howe Partners Inc. v. Mooradian
Anti-SLAPP motion to strike denied to homeowners because Indemnity clause in remodeling contract not an issue of public interest. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/7 Dec. 23, 2019
Rall v. Tribune 365, LLC
Police investigation report published in newspaper privileged and protected against defamation suit since report was a fair and true report of a public issue. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Dec. 20, 2019
Modification: O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC
California's Anti-SLAPP statute protects the dispersal of settlement funds pursuant to active litigation; a lienhold challenger must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to overcome an Anti-SLAPP motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 Dec. 19, 2019
Wong v. Wong
Anti-SLAPP motion properly denied because plaintiffs' claims were premised on defendants' alleged breach of obligation to indemnify plaintiffs for liabilities, rather than defendants' prior litigation against plaintiffs. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/1 Dec. 17, 2019
Long Beach Unified School Dist. v. Margaret Williams, LLC
Anti-SLAPP motion properly granted by trial court due to cross-claims arising out of protected activity, and the challenged claims lacking legal sufficiency due to unconscionability of a disputed indemnity provision. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/4 Dec. 11, 2019
Bernstein v. LaBeouf
A defendant's celebrity status does not automatically convert his otherwise private conduct into a matter of public interest protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/3 Dec. 9, 2019
Garcia v. Rosenberg
Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted because plaintiffs failed to comply with the applicable statute of limitations, so their action was time-barred and they would not prevail on the merits. 		Anti-SLAPP 5DCA Dec. 6, 2019
O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC
California's Anti-SLAPP statute protects the dispersal of settlement funds pursuant to active litigation; a lienhold challenger must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to overcome an Anti-SLAPP motion 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/4 Nov. 27, 2019
Briganti v. Chow
Defamation claim should not be stricken because although defendant contended that his Facebook comment was hyperbole, plaintiff need only establish her claim had at least minimal merit under anti-SLAPP analysis. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/4 Nov. 26, 2019
Lee v. Kim
Appellant failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claim; thus, trial court properly granted anti-SLAPP motion. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/1 Nov. 4, 2019
Miller Marital Deduction Trust v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
Trial court properly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, because anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 		Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/3 Oct. 23, 2019
Starview Property, LLC. v. Lee
An anti-SLAPP motion may be brought within 60 days of an amended complaint if the amended complaint pleads new causes of action that could not have been raised earlier. 		Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Oct. 21, 2019
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.