During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


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.

The Legislature directed the Inspector General to investigate the treatment of prisoners at the High Desert prison, so the IG’s office should have won its Anti-SLAPP motion when it got sued for interrogating police officers, allegedly in violation of the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights Act.  Read More

Legal malpractice actions generally are not SLAPPs even though much evidence to prove the malpractice claim involves actions taken in the prosecution or defense of the underlying action. Read More

Defendant’s complaint about plaintiff to the private Certified Financial Planners Board of Standards is not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute since the Board is neither a government agency nor a public forum. Read More

The trial court properly granted defendant landlord's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff's claim that the landlord violated Santa Monica's anti-harassment ordinance by filing an unlawful detainer complaint against the plaintiff which supposedly lacked sufficient factual and legal support. Read More

Defendant was entitled to Anti-SLAPP protection after plaintiff sued it for defamation and interference with economic advantage based on defendant’s activities in lobbying local government to disallow plaintiff’s proposed subdivision. Read More

An employer could not pursue a lawsuit against former employee’s lawyer for disclosing, in course of False Claims Act suit, documents that the employee had taken with him after being fired. Read More

In the anti-SLAPP context, if a complaint itself shows that a claim arises from protected conduct, a moving party may rely on the plaintiff's allegations alone in making the showing necessary under prong one without submitting supporting evidence. Read More

1 2 3 4 5 9