A whistleblower suit under Health and Safety Code 1278.5 cannot be stricken under the Anti-SLAPP statute, since defendant’s alleged wrongful purpose or motive in firing plaintiff was not protected Anti-SLAPP activity. Read More
Defendant movie studio’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied as plaintiff’s implied-in-fact contract claim was based on the unprotected act of not paying him for his story idea, not on the protected act of producing the film based on his idea. Read More
An Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted against suit alleging that creditor violated state and federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts by recording an abstract of judgment creditor had obtained against plaintiff’s former domestic partner. Read More
A discrimination suit challenging a tenure decision is not subject to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike even if the decision followed a public hearing and statements made at the hearing are used as evidence of bias. Read More
Plaintiff’s lawsuit against San Diego State University was properly dismissed since, despite being couched as a contract-related claim, the suit actually sought to challenge protected news-gathering and reporting for KPBS, a station owned by the university. Read More
Although celebrity defendant’s comments about celebrity plaintiff ex-girlfriend’s medical history were matters of public interest and received Anti-SLAPP protection, his posting of a sonogram and medical records on social media was a bridge too far even in the relatively lenient context of celebrity gossip. Read More
Employer’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted in response to terminated CEO’s defamation claim, since the allegedly defamatory press release stated only that a third party investigation of allegations against the CEO had been undertaken and that he was terminated as a result of that investigation. Read More
On an Anti-SLAPP motion attacking a “mixed” claim alleging both protected and unprotected conduct, the allegations of protected conduct are viewed separately, and if not merely incidental, are stricken unless the plaintiff shows a probability of succeeding on the claim based on those allegations alone. Read More
Statements and conduct during a hospital’s peer review of a staff physician are protected under the Anti-SLAPP statute, and cannot be challenged by the physician unless he has successfully sought relief in court from the peer review’s conclusion. Read More
A homeowner’s application to have a homeowner’s association enforce a tree-trimming covenant against his neighbor was protected activity under the Anti-SLAPP statute, and the neighbor’s quiet title claim had no chance of success after the homeowner withdrew the application thus removing any cloud on the neighbor’s title. Read More
Trial court properly granted Anti-SLAPP motion filed by State of California in lawsuit brought by individual who was claiming the State threatened him with arrest or prosecution if he failed to register as a sex offender. Read More
Anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff actor’s complaint was properly granted in favor of defendant actor-director with respect to racial discrimination claims alleging defendant had called plaintiff the N-word on set. Read More
Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied when he was sued for secretly tape recording, and later publishing, a conversation that took place over dinner at a restaurant with plaintiff’s president, because even though this was protected activity, plaintiff showed a probability of success on its claims for, among other things, invasion of privacy. Read More
Based on a recently-enacted Oregon statute requiring courts to enter a limited, immediately appealable judgment when denying an Anti-SLAPP motion, the Ninth Circuit now has jurisdiction to consider appeals from orders denying Anti-SLAPP motions under Oregon law. Read More
Statements an attorney made to news media about a suit he filed on behalf of a client were protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute because the lawsuit and the attorney's statements about it involved matters of public interest such as the allegation that the defendants in that suit had implanted phony spinal implants in thousands of patients. Read More
Even if the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it may grant the defendant's special Anti-SLAPP motion to strike und award the defendant attorney fees, since lack of jurisdiction is one of many possible non-merits-related reasons for holding, at the second stage of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, that the plaintiff has not shown a probability of success on the merits. Read More
An anti-SLAPP motion is untimely if not filed within 60 days of service of the first complaint that pleads a cause of action coming within anti-SLAPP protection, unless the trial court—in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper—permits the motion to be filed at a later time. Read More
An Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because the allegedly false accusation that plaintiff operated a single treatment facility without a required state license was not a matter of public concern and so was not protected speech. Read More
Discussions and votes of board members at HOA board meetings are protected free speech under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, so a suit based on that conduct should have been stricken. Read More
The trial court erred in granting a defendant news organization’s Anti-SLAPP motion in an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, since the challenged conduct involved allegedly wrongful adverse employment actions rather than the production or content of defendant’s news programs. Read More
