The trial court erred in denying defendant attorney fees under the Anti-SLAPP statute when defendant prevailed on the motion to strike as to the abuse of process claim, though not as to the malicious prosecution claim. Fees must be awarded to the moving defendant upon partial success of the motion, though the amount of the fee award is properly proportioned… Read More
The mere fact that plaintiff's suit was filed in retaliation for an earlier claim against the plaintiff by the defendant does not make the plaintiff's suit a SLAPP subject to a special motion to strike under CCP 425.16. Instead, whether it is a SLAPP depends on whether the defendant's earlier claim (or other protected activity) forms a basis for the… Read More
Four individuals protested the Golden Gate racetrack's allegedly improper treatment of race horses by sneaking onto the track, linking their arms by PVC pipes and lying across the track in a manner that prevented the racetrack from holding races. The racetrack owner sued the four individuals for trespass and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, naming Direct Action as an… Read More
Plaintiff sued for defamation, alleging that defendants falsely told several reporters that plaintiff had provided explicit nude photographs of Bezos to the National Enquirer as part of a conspiracy to damage Bezos. On defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion, plaintiff's only evidence was his declaration stating that several news reporters had told him that Bezos told them plaintiff had given the photos to… Read More
Plaintiffs sued claiming they had been sexually molested while minors by a Roman Catholic priest. They sought to hold the Archdiocese vicariously liable for ratifying the molestation and directly liable for its own negligence in failing to supervise the priest. The trial court correctly denied the Archdiocese's Anti-SLAPP motion. The allegations about the Bishop's supporting the priest's defense of another… Read More
The trial court correctly denied this lawyer-defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion, finding that this suit to collect the agreed price for its services was not based on protected speech. The fraud and concealment claim brought against the lawyer was for misrepresentations and concealments about the client-buyer's financial condition which induced plaintiff to enter into the services contract. Communications at the pre-contract stage… Read More
Following Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170 and E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1140, this decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant attorneys in this malpractice action based on the allegation that the attorneys failed to warn plaintiff of the disadvantages of bringing the underlying suit in California where the defendant could… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither party prevailed or was entitled to an attorney fee award under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code 5975(e)) or the private attorney general statute (CCP 1021.5) in this suit by a condo owner against the condo association. Although plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction and prevailed in forcing the condo… Read More
The automatic stay on appeal prevents the trial court from entering a voluntary dismissal of the action while the case is on appeal from an interlocutory order (such as here, an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion) because dismissal of the case would affect the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction over the appeal. Furthermore, even if it were otherwise effective, a voluntary… Read More
When an Anti-SLAPP motion attacks a mixed cause of action, the motion must identify the portions of the cause of action that allege protected activity, but when the motion attacks an entire cause of action, it does not need to identify the activity at issue, since by default it claims that all activity mentioned in the cause of action is… Read More
The district court denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the first amended complaint's defamation claims but granted defendant's motion to dismiss the other claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint before defendant appealed from the order denying the Anti-SLAPP motion. This decision holds that the filing of the second amended complaint mooted the appeal from the… Read More
Defendant attorney's threats to reveal plaintiff's alleged crimes to a merger partner when coupled with a demand to settle the defendant's client's employment claims constituted extortion. Extortion is the threat to reveal damaging information if money isn't paid. There is no need to prove that the threat has been carried out. Extortion is not protected speech. Flatley v. Mauro (2006)… Read More
Owners of adjoining apartments mediated Doe's civil harassment prevention action, reaching an agreement that provided, among other things, that the parties agree not to disparage one another. This decision holds that read in light of the limited nature of the action and surrounding circumstances, the provision could not reasonably be read to ban Doe from saying negative things about Olson… Read More
A defendant that files an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike under CCP 425.16 may seek attorney fees (based on prevailing on the Anti-SLAPP motion) in one of three ways: as part of the Anti-SLAPP motion, by a post-judgment memorandum of costs, or by a post-judgment motion for an attorney fee award. This decision holds that if the defendant chooses either of… Read More
The trial court erred in granting defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this defamation action. Defendant was a competitor of plaintiff in selling life insurance and wealth management services to Chinese and Chinese-American clients. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had falsely told insurance agents and one client that plaintiff was dishonest and unethical in her business practices and falsified insurance documents. Before… Read More
Statements made in 8-K and 10-Q reports filed with the SEC are protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)(2)) as statements “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by [an] official proceeding.” Statements made during earnings calls with investors and analysts about a public company's financial projections are also protected under CCP 425.16(e)(4) since they are… Read More
Statements made in a 10-K report filed with the SEC are protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)(2)) as statements “made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by [an] official proceeding.” That was particularly so in this case where the 10-K report addressed issues that the SEC was then investigating. Read More
The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion in this suit over alleged misappropriation of ideas for a proposed TV show. To warrant protection under CCP 425.16(e)(4), the conduct out of which the suit arises must not only be in furtherance of the exercise of free speech but also concern a matter of public interest. Here, acts done in creating… Read More
In this defamation case by a real estate developer against a political consultant, the trial court correctly denied the consultant's Anti-SLAPP motion. While the allegedly defamatory political campaign mailers that the consultant prepared were protected activity, the developer proved a probability of success on his defamation claim. The mailers stated that the developer "wants his money back" directly under factual… Read More
The trial court correctly excluded most of a declaration by Synchrony Bank's litigation assistant which attempted to show that plaintiff had agreed to the arbitration provision of the bank's credit card agreement. Though the declaration attached copies of account statements and different versions of the credit card agreement containing the arbitration clause, it did not attach any record showing the… Read More
