Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Anti-SLAPP

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

California Rule of Court 3.1322 requires that a motion to strike be brought with a demurrer or within 30 days after service of complaint and requires a notice of a motion to strike "quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense."  This decision… Read More

Defendant is a student loan debt collector which sued plaintiff on a student loan debt.  Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that defendant manufactured false substitute rosters to show which entities owned the student loans it sued to collect.  The complaints alleged protected activity in the course of petitioning courts.  The case did not fit within the Flatley v.… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  The absolute litigation privilege did not protect her from liability for her web blog and Yelp! postings that allegedly defamed the plaintiff construction contractor that she said had botched repairs on her house.  Though defendant had filed a complaint with the Contractor's Licensing Board which had awarded her compensation from the plaintiff,… Read More

This decision holds that the trial court erred in denying defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action.  While the defendants made a bunch of mistakes in conducting the underlying quiet title action, they did not lack probable cause because two instruments describing the same easement signed by the same grantor gave conflicting information about the easement's temporal duration. … Read More

Distinguishing Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 173, this decision holds that plaintiff waived his right to attorney fees for opposing defendant's frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion by failing to give defendant 21-day notice before filing the motion for attorney fees.  CCP 425.16(d) provides that fees for opposing a frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion may be awarded in accordance with… Read More

The parties had been high school sweethearts.  After they broke up, defendant emailed Dartmouth, where plaintiff had enrolled for college.  The emails said various disparaging things about plaintiff including that he had been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in high school for voter fraud in a student body president election.  This decision holds that defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion was properly… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  This Brown Act suit targeted the City Council's taking action on an item that was not posted in an agenda at least 72 hours before the City Council meeting in violation of Gov. Code, § 54954.2(a)(1).  While what was said at the City Council meeting may have been protected speech, the Council's… Read More

Insofar as defendant's cross-complaint was based on plaintiff's press releases about a treatment it was developing for opioid overdose, the claims fell within the CCP 425.17(c) exemption from the Anti-SLAPP statute.  Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the fact that over recent years it obtained and spent most of its money on research and development did not show that it was not… Read More

Seyfarth was hired to investigate a professor's claim that she was discriminated against by Cal. State University Fullerton.  It performed the investigation and submitted a report to the university administration concluding there was no merit to the professor's claims. After unsuccessfully suing a host of other defendants, the professor sued Seyfarth, claiming the report and investigation were biased, etc.  Seyfarth… Read More

Seyfarth was hired to investigate a professor's claim that she was discriminated against by Cal. State University Fullerton.  It performed the investigation and submitted a report to the university administration concluding there was no merit to the professor's claims. After unsuccessfully suing a host of other defendants, the professor sued Seyfarth, claiming the report and investigation were biased, etc.  Seyfarth… Read More

This decision holds that the Anti-SLAPP motion in this case was properly denied because the suit fits within CCP 425.17(b)'s exception for suits in the public interest.  The plaintiff did not seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which the plaintiff was a member. Seeking individualized relief, such… Read More

Following prior 9th Circuit precedent, this decision holds that an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine--unless the order denies the motion because the claim fits within one of CP 425.17's exceptions to the Anti-SLAPP statute--but in concurrences two of the panel's three judges urge the full court to overrule the prior… Read More

Applying the test for conduct in furtherance of First Amendment activities stated in Filmon.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, this decision holds that while the production of a TV program about rich Asian-Americans' adjustment to life in LA was an exercise of constitutionally protected expression, the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint--denying the plaintiff a role in producing… Read More

A news organization sent UC Irvine a records request under the California Public Records Act for documents about a professor's postpublication communications about her articles which UCI had withdrawn from publication due to concerns about plagarism and accuracy of citations.  The professor filed this lawsuit to prevent UCI from producing documents in response to the request. Held, the suit arose… Read More

When a defendant files an Anti-SLAPP motion, he must identify which portions of the complaint he wishes to strike and show that those portions of the complaint allege conduct that is protected under CCP 425.16(e).  If the defendant moves to strike the whole complaint without identifying smaller portions of the complaint, the court may deny the motion if it finds… Read More

While the act of demoting or firing a city employee or official is not protected activity, city council members' votes and debates are protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute.  Here, a city treasurer sued city council members individually (and not the city) for acts taken to deprive her office of most of its functions and salary.  Held, the claim against… Read More

This decision holds that the trial court properly denied defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion because defendants failed to show that the suit arose from protected speech.  The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate AB 1936 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) which renamed Hastings College of Law (due to Hastings' alleged involvement in the massacre of Native Americans in Mendocino County).  The legislation… Read More

Former nanny sued parent-employers on four wage-and-hour claims and also for defamation based on statements parents made to a friend the parents involved in an attempt to obtain a release of claims by the nanny in exchange for a severance package.  Held, the statements were not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute since litigation was not then threatened or seriously… Read More

Plaintiff made a sufficient showing of constitutional "malice"--i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless with respect to truth--to survive an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss.  In this case, plaintiff, an opposing candidate, sued Maxine Waters for falsely accusing him of having been dishonorably discharged by the Navy.  Plaintiff showed Waters an official-looking document saying he was honorably discharged.  Waters didn't investigate whether… Read More

Reversing an Anti-SLAPP order striking plaintiff's complaint, this decision holds that Civ. Code 1788.17 incorporates into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the strict liability standard of 15 USC 1692(e) for false statements made in collecting a debt or regarding the legal status of the debt.  Thus, the debt collector may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for… Read More

1 2 3 8