1st amendment Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/1st-amendment/ Christian, Political, ‎‏‏‎Social & Legal Free Speech News | Ⓒ2024 Good News Media LLC | Shepherd for the Herd! God 1st Programming Sat, 23 Aug 2025 23:51:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Good-Shepherd-News-Logo-150x150.png 1st amendment Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/1st-amendment/ 32 32 Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases https://goodshepherdmedia.net/anti-slapp-and-free-speech-in-defamation-emotional-distress-cases/ Sun, 24 Aug 2025 01:02:07 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=19641 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fort-Minor-Remember-the-Name.mp3

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Anti-SLAPP statutes are laws intended to curb – and, often, penalize – the filing of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or a “SLAPP.” A SLAPP is a lawsuit that, on its face, attempts to impose liability on a defendant for harm arising from speech

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) provides a powerful tool to early-dismiss lawsuits targeting speech on matters of public concern. Below, we survey key published, precedential cases from the past decade (2015–2025) – with a few landmark earlier cases – in which defendants (often journalists, media outlets, or online speakers) prevailed on anti-SLAPP motions against defamation and emotional distress claims. We organize the cases by court and highlight the facts, outcomes, and legal significance, followed by overarching themes and trends.

California Supreme Court

  • Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) – Anti-SLAPP procedure for mixed claims. The Court held that an anti-SLAPP motion may target specific allegations within a cause of action arising from protected speech, rather than the entire cause of action. This clarified that courts can strike the protected activity allegations (e.g. statements) while allowing any unprotected claims to proceed​casp.net

    . Outcome: The defendant’s motion was ultimately granted in part, striking the allegations based on an audit report that constituted protected speech. Significance: Baral strengthened anti-SLAPP’s effectiveness by permitting partial strikes, preventing plaintiffs from evading the statute by embedding protected speech inside broader claims.

  • Park v. Board of Trustees of CSU, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) – Limiting scope to claims “arising from” speech. The plaintiff sued a university for discrimination after being denied tenure, and the university filed an anti-SLAPP motion because the tenure decision was communicated in a letter. The Supreme Court denied the motion, clarifying that a lawsuit must be caused by protected speech to fall under anti-SLAPP – merely communicating a decision is not enough​casp.net

    . Outcome: The anti-SLAPP motion was denied as the gravamen of the claim was discrimination, not the speech about it. Significance: Park refines prong one of the anti-SLAPP test by requiring a tight nexus between the challenged claim and the defendant’s speech. It ensures anti-SLAPP is focused on true First Amendment issues and not routine conduct.

    FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (Cal. 2019) – “Public issue” defined in context. A website operator sued a media metrics company for disparaging reports sent to its paying clients, and the defendant invoked anti-SLAPP. The Supreme Court articulated a context-specific test for whether speech is “in connection with” a public issue​casp.net

    . Outcome: It held that while the subject of the reports (online content piracy) was a public issue, the context—private subscriber reports—meant the speech did not further public debate, so anti-SLAPP protection was denied​casp.net

    . Significance: FilmOn imposes a nuanced, multi-factor inquiry into context, audience, and speaker intent in prong one. It narrowed the scope of what communications qualify as public-interest speech, focusing on whether the speech contributes to public discussion​casp.net

    .

  • Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (Cal. 2019) – Media employer’s speech vs. employment claims. A former CNN journalist sued for race discrimination and defamation after being fired. CNN’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied on the discrimination claims, and the Supreme Court agreed. It reasoned the firing was not “in furtherance” of free speech rights – the lawsuit was about unlawful discrimination, not the content of CNN’s news reporting​dwt.com

    . Outcome: The Court held anti-SLAPP did not apply to the non-defamation claims (wrongful termination, etc.), though the accompanying defamation claim (challenging statements about the firing) did arise from protected news commentary. Significance: Wilson (building on Park) underscores that employment or harassment claims against media companies won’t be struck simply because the employer is engaged in speech business. Only claims truly based on speech on issues of public interest (e.g. a defamatory explanation given to the public) trigger the statute​dwt.com

    .

  • Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal.5th 781 (Cal. 2019) – Attorney speech and public interest. Although not a defamation case, this decision held that a lawyer’s public statements about a product liability settlement were protected petitioning speech. Outcome: The suit against the lawyer was dismissed. Significance: It highlights how anti-SLAPP protects attorneys and participants speaking about litigation in the public arena, reinforcing protections for legal advocacy in the court of public opinion.

(Major earlier Supreme Court precedents):

  • Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc., 34 Cal.4th 679 (Cal. 2004) – A TV network aired a true-crime documentary about a man’s criminal past. He sued for invasion of privacy (having dropped defamation). The Court held the broadcast was newsworthy and protected by the First Amendment, making it “impossible for Gates to prevail”​casp.net

    . Outcome: Anti-SLAPP struck the privacy claim. Significance: Even a harmful depiction of someone’s past crimes was shielded as a matter of public interest; truthful, newsworthy publications cannot give rise to liability for emotional distress or privacy when public concern is involved​casp.net

    .

  • Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) – An attorney’s pre-suit letter threatening to expose a rape allegation unless paid was deemed extortion, which is illegal conduct not protected by free speech. Outcome: The lawyer’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied under the narrow exception for speech “illegal as a matter of law.” Significance: This carved out a “narrow” exception to anti-SLAPP for egregious conduct like extortion, ensuring genuinely criminal speech cannot hide behind First Amendment protections​casp.net

    .

  • Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) – Established that a defendant can invoke anti-SLAPP even if the underlying dispute wasn’t initially about free speech. Here, a counterclaim alleging fraud in the context of exercising settlement rights was struck as a SLAPP​casp.net

    . Significance: The anti-SLAPP law is to be construed broadly; even claims “incidental” to expressive conduct (like signing a release or filing a lawsuit) can be protected petitioning activity.

  • Briggs v. Eden Council, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) – The Court’s first anti-SLAPP case, holding the statute protects “any lawsuit arising from the exercise of the right to petition or free speech” regardless of public significance​casp.net

    . Significance: Confirmed the Legislature’s intent that anti-SLAPP be applied broadly to protect all manner of petitioning speech, not only speech on government matters​casp.net

    .

California Courts of Appeal

Media Defendants (Journalists & News Publishers): California courts have consistently protected journalists and news outlets from defamation suits over reporting on matters of public concern – especially when the content is true or sourced from official records.

  • Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 1551 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) – A newspaper reported on SEC accusations of stock fraud against the plaintiff, who sued for defamation. The court affirmed dismissal under anti-SLAPP: the articles plainly involved a public issue (securities enforcement) and were protected as fair and true reports of official proceedings​casp.net

    . The defendant was also immune under California’s fair report privilege (Civ. Code § 47), and plaintiff offered no credible evidence of actual malice​casp.net

    . Outcome: Anti-SLAPP motion granted; case dismissed. Significance: Accurate news reports on government allegations are firmly protected. The decision underscores that truth and privilege are complete defenses – if the content was based on public records and the plaintiff cannot show it’s false or published with “actual malice”, a defamation claim has no probability of prevailing​casp.net

  • Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal.App.5th 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) – Celebrity boxer Floyd Mayweather’s ex-fiancée sued him for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after he publicly posted on Facebook about her abortion and discussed her cosmetic surgeries in a radio interview. The Court of Appeal held Mayweather’s statements were made in a public forum and concerned issues of public interest – namely, a high-profile couple’s relationship and a celebrity’s image​law.justia.com

    . It found the claims arose from protected speech and that the plaintiff failed to show a probability of prevailing. Outcome: The defamation, false light, and public-disclosure claims were stricken (the court only left intact a narrow portion of the privacy claim)​law.justia.com

    . Significance: Even speech about personal matters can be a public issue if it involves public figures or online discourse that the public is following. The decision acknowledged that Mayweather’s social media commentary, though deeply offensive to the plaintiff, was part of public conversation about a celebrity couple, and the plaintiff could not prove the statements false (in fact, she had undergone the procedures)​law.justia.com

    . This highlights that “negative but true” content – even very private facts – may be protected when the individuals are famous or the subject is newsworthy.

  • Daniel v. Wayans, 8 Cal.App.5th 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) – Actor Marlon Wayans was sued by an extra (Pierre Daniel) for racial harassment, misappropriation, and IIED after Wayans joked on Twitter that Daniel looked like a cartoon character and even used a racial slur in a teasing manner on set. The court granted Wayans’s anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that his “allegedly harassing and offensive” tweets and remarks were protected free speech made in connection with an issue of public interest​thewrap.com

    . Wayans was in the midst of creating and promoting a comedy film; his on-set banter and tweet were part of his creative process and social commentary in the comedy context, which the court deemed protected expression​thewrap.com

    . Outcome: The lawsuit was dismissed and Wayans recovered his attorneys’ fees. The court found that the tweet – “Tell me this n—- don’t look like…THIS n—-!!! Ol Cleveland Brown ass looking” – was protected satire and opinion, not a statement of fact, and that using the extra’s photo in a comic tweet was transformative fair use​thewrap.com

    It also held the conduct was not “outrageous” beyond First Amendment protection. Significance: Daniel v. Wayans illustrates that artistic and comedic expression, even if crass or insulting, can qualify as speech on a matter of public interest (here, a film and its characters) when disseminated publicly. The court emphasized the need to protect creative works and promotion of entertainment under the anti-SLAPP law, noting that holding such speech liable (absent false assertions of fact) would chill comedians and artists​thewrap.com

    ​

  • Cross v. Cooper, 197 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) – A resident created and distributed a flyer titled “Meet Your New Neighbor” with the photo and Megan’s Law sex-offender registry information of the plaintiff, warning the community about him. The plaintiff sued for defamation and emotional distress. The court struck the suit under the anti-SLAPP statute, finding the conduct was quintessential speech on a matter of public concern: “the strong and widespread public interest in knowing the location of registered sex offenders”caselaw.findlaw.com

    . Because the flyer’s factual content about the plaintiff’s convictions was true and obtained from a public registry, he could not show a likelihood of prevailing on any defamation or IIED claim. Outcome: Anti-SLAPP granted, dismissing the lawsuit. Significance: This case confirms that republishing publicly available, truthful information – even if highly stigmatizing – is protected. Using a person’s publicly posted photo and record to alert the community was deemed lawful and protected speech about public safety. The decision reinforced that truth is an absolute defense and that the First Amendment does not permit liability for emotional distress when the underlying facts are true and concern public welfare​caselaw.findlaw.com

Online Reviews, Bloggers, and Social Media Speech: Many defamation/IIED SLAPP suits in the last decade have targeted consumer reviews or Internet posts. Courts have largely sided with defendants, recognizing online platforms as public forums and the posts as commentary on issues that can be of public interest (e.g. consumer protection, professional quality, community matters).

  • Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) – A Yelp review by parents criticizing a dentist’s treatment of their child led to the dentist suing for libel and emotional distress. The Court of Appeal held the review was made on a public Internet forum and concerned the quality of dental services – a matter of interest to other consumers. It ruled that six of the seven causes of action should have been stricken under the anti-SLAPP law​casp.net

    (one minor claim was remanded). Significance: Wong set an early example that outspoken consumer reviews on sites like Yelp are generally protected opinion or at least subject to anti-SLAPP. Statements about a professional’s services affect the public (prospective patients) and thus meet the public-interest requirement. Unless a reviewer’s factual assertions are provably false and made with actual malice, defamation claims will likely fail.

  • Chaker v. Mateo, 209 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) – In a contentious personal dispute, a woman (and her mother) posted negative comments about her ex-boyfriend on RipoffReport and Topix, accusing him of being a fraud, a deadbeat dad, and having a shady business. The court had “little problem” finding these online postings protected by the anti-SLAPP statute​blog.ericgoldman.org

    ​

    The Internet is a “classic public forum” open to billions, and the posts about Chaker’s character and business practices fell within “the rubric of consumer information” intended as a warning to others about his trustworthiness​blog.ericgoldman.org

    ​

    Outcome: The defamation claim was struck. The court noted that even though the dispute was personal, the content – allegations of dishonest business practices – could inform consumers and thus was an issue of public interest​blog.ericgoldman.org

    Significance: Chaker broadened the interpretation of “public interest” to include internet discussions blending personal grievances with consumer caution. It confirmed that online forums facilitate an exchange on everything from “great issues of war [to] the relative quality of chicken pot pies,” and that posts aiming to flag someone’s reliability in commerce qualify as speech on a matter of public concern​ blog.ericgoldman.org

    This case is frequently cited to argue that consumer review sites and complaint boards are public fora and that criticism of a person’s business conduct is protected speech​ blog.ericgoldman.org

  • Grenier v. Taylor, 234 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) – Former parishioners accused their church pastor of wrongdoing on an internet blog, and the pastor sued for defamation and emotional distress. The court struck some claims and allowed others, illustrating the line between opinion and fact. Outcome: Allegations that could be seen as opinion or religious matters (thus non-verifiable) were protected, but one specific factual accusation was allowed to proceed since the plaintiff showed it was likely false. Significance: Grenier shows courts will parse each statement in an online post – protecting harsh opinions or rhetoric about public figures (even religious leaders) while allowing truly defamatory factual allegations (if provably false and damaging) to go forward past prong two.

  • Cross v. Facebook, Inc., 14 Cal.App.5th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) – After Cross v. Cooper (the Megan’s Law case above) was dismissed, the plaintiff attempted to sue Facebook for hosting the content. That suit was defeated not only by Section 230 immunity but also characterized as a SLAPP. The court noted that holding platforms liable for users’ protected posts would undermine online speech. Significance: While not a traditional anti-SLAPP merits victory (it was dismissed on immunity grounds), it underscores that plaintiffs sometimes try to circumvent anti-SLAPP wins by targeting platforms, an approach courts have rejected in favor of broad speech protections.

SLAPP back: Suits Against Malicious Litigants or Lawyers: California law permits a prevailing SLAPP defendant to sue back for malicious prosecution (sometimes called a “SLAPPback”) if the original suit was baseless and filed with malice. Several cases demonstrate this accountability:

  • Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal.App.4th 1522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) – After a real estate dispute, attorney Mahaffey had added 45 limited partners (innocent third parties) as defendants in a lawsuit solely to pressure the main defendant. When that suit failed, those individuals sued Mahaffey and her firm for malicious prosecution. The defendants (the lawyers) filed anti-SLAPP motions, but the courts found the limited partners had established a prima facie case of malicious prosecution (no probable cause for the prior suit and evidence of malice)​ ocbar.org

    . The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motions, ruling that Mahaffey’s aggressive tactic of suing uninvolved parties was grounds for a malicious prosecution claim​ ocbar.org

    . Outcome: The malicious prosecution case proceeded to trial, resulting in a judgment holding the attorney liable for roughly $400,000 in damages and fees. Significance: Jay v. Mahaffey is a cautionary tale for attorneys: those who file frivolous, harassing lawsuits can not only lose under anti-SLAPP but also face personal liability for malicious prosecution. It highlights that California courts will protect targets of SLAPPs by allowing them to seek redress against lawyers who abuse the court system. As the court noted, a plaintiff must have a legitimate cause of action – suing “clearly non-liable” parties just to exert leverage invites a malicious prosecution suit​ ocbar.org

  • Daniels v. Robbins, 182 Cal.App.4th 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) – In an earlier notable case, a lawyer was sued for malicious prosecution for pursuing an underlying lawsuit that lacked merit. The court held the anti-SLAPP statute did apply (malicious prosecution suits arise from petitioning activity), but that the plaintiff had shown a probability of success (the prior case ended in his favor and without probable cause). Outcome: The anti-SLAPP motion by the attorney was denied and that denial affirmed on appeal, allowing the suit to go forward. Significance: Daniels (and later cases like Jay) establish that a well-founded malicious prosecution claim can overcome an anti-SLAPP motion – in other words, the law shields the wrongly sued, not the wrongdoer. California even has a specific provision (CCP §425.18) limiting anti-SLAPP delays in “SLAPPback” cases, reflecting the Legislature’s intent to let victims of SLAPPs seek damages.

  • Paiva v. Nichols, 168 Cal.App.4th 1007 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) – Here, former defendants sued a plaintiff’s lawyers for malicious prosecution after winning a SLAPP dismissal in the underlying case. The court emphasized that anti-SLAPP protections don’t bar a malicious prosecution claim if the prior suit was ultimately resolved in defendants’ favor. Significance: It confirms that the favorable termination of a SLAPP – e.g. dismissal on the merits or via anti-SLAPP – can tee up a new claim against the instigators, incentivizing truthfulness and discouraging truly frivolous suits.

 

In sum, California appellate courts have routinely upheld anti-SLAPP motions for speakers ranging from newspaper publishers to Yelp reviewers, while also permitting “countersuit” remedies against those who misuse the courts. The common thread is a robust protection of speech, especially speech involving public participation, coupled with consequences for meritless litigation.

U.S. Supreme Court

Although there is no federal anti-SLAPP statute, U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence provides the backbone principles that often determine SLAPP outcomes. Several landmark Supreme Court cases – some recent, some decades-old – establish strong freedom-of-speech protections in defamation and IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) cases, which California courts in turn apply through the anti-SLAPP framework:

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) – This seminal case constitutionalized defamation law. The Supreme Court held that public officials (and later, public figures) must prove “actual malice” – that a defamatory statement was made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth – to recover damages​ supreme.justia.com

    ​

    . The Court recognized that erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate and must be protected to give breathing space to the First Amendment​ en.wikipedia.org

    . Significance: Sullivan greatly raised the plaintiff’s burden in defamation suits, especially for media defendants. It shifted the proof of falsity onto the plaintiff and shielded publishers from liability for mere negligent mistakes​ supreme.justia.com

    . This doctrine is echoed in anti-SLAPP prong two analyses – many defamation claims against news outlets fail because the plaintiff cannot show evidence of actual malice​casp.net

    . Sullivan’s legacy, as one court noted, was to give “substantial protections to defendants such as newspapers” by requiring robust proof of fault​supreme.justia.com

    , thereby thwarting the vast majority of SLAPP-style defamation suits by public figures.

  • Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) – The magazine Hustler ran a parody ad depicting evangelist Jerry Falwell in a lewd, false scenario. Falwell sued for IIED (having already lost his libel claim because the parody was patently fictitious). The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the emotional-distress verdict in Falwell’s favor. It held that a public figure cannot recover for IIED based on a caricature or parody without showing the publication contained a false statement of fact made with actual malice​ en.wikipedia.org

    . Simply put, outrageousness is not a sufficient benchmark when free speech is at stake​ en.wikipedia.org

    . The Court warned that allowing liability for speech intended to inflict emotional harm – in the absence of any falsity – “would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards” for doing what satirists do: exaggerating and ridiculing​ en.wikipedia.org

    . Significance: Hustler v. Falwell extends Sullivan’s shield to emotional distress torts, protecting even speech that is intentionally caustic or offensive, so long as it does not state actual defamatory falsehoods. It cemented the principle that public figures cannot use IIED claims as an “end-run” around First Amendment safeguards for satire and opinion. This ruling is frequently invoked in SLAPP cases to defend harsh criticism and parody. For example, California courts citing Hustler have refused to find speech “outrageous” enough to lose protection unless it also includes provably false assertions of fact​ thewrap.com

  • Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) – In a modern echo of Falwell, the Court held that the Westboro Baptist Church’s offensive funeral picketing (with signs like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”) was protected by the First Amendment against tort claims by the fallen soldier’s family. The speech, however hurtful, addressed matters of public concern (the nation’s morality, the military, etc.) in a public place. Therefore, it could not form the basis of liability for IIED or intrusion as a matter of law​ en.wikipedia.org

    . The Court emphasized that speech on public issues, to which the listeners could avert their eyes, occupies “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values”. Significance: Snyder reaffirmed that speech cannot be punished simply because it causes pain or outrage, if it is on political or social issues. Even a private plaintiff (not a public figure) could not recover for emotional distress because the defendants spoke on a public matter at a public event​ en.wikipedia.org

    . This decision resonates in anti-SLAPP analyses: it draws a bright line that speech on public affairs – however unpleasant – is immune from tort liability for emotional harm. California courts have cited Snyder in holding that vehement online commentary or protests on public concerns are protected from IIED claims. Essentially, if speech is about a broader issue and not a targeted private harassment, Snyder instructs that the First Amendment prevails.

  • Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) – The Supreme Court balanced the rights of private individuals and media defendants. It held that private-figure defamation plaintiffs need not prove actual malice to recover actual damages, but they must show at least negligence, and cannot recover punitive damages without actual malice. It also declared there is no constitutional value in false statements, but States cannot impose liability without fault. Significance: Gertz is reflected in California law by distinguishing public vs. private plaintiffs in anti-SLAPP prong two: a private figure may have an easier path to show probability of success (no malice requirement) unless the speech was about a public issue. But California’s anti-SLAPP still often shields defendants if the private figure cannot show the statements were false or made negligently. Moreover, if the speech is on a public matter, Gertz’s logic combined with Sullivan means even private plaintiffs often effectively need to prove malice to get presumed or punitive damages – a high hurdle in SLAPP cases​ casp.net

    .

  • Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) – The Court clarified that there is no wholesale exemption for “opinion” in defamation law; rather, a statement of opinion can be actionable if it implies an assertion of objective fact. However, pure opinions or subjective critiques that “cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts” are fully protected. Significance: This principle is a staple in SLAPP defenses: defendants often argue that their allegedly defamatory remarks were non-actionable opinion or hyperbole. For example, calling someone a fraud or comparing them to a cartoon character can be defended as opinion in context​ thewrap.com

    , especially on Internet forums where rhetorical flourish is common. California courts, following Milkovich, assess the totality of circumstances – a key factor in prong two – to decide if a statement was factual enough to be proven true/false or just opinion. If it’s the latter, the plaintiff cannot meet the burden of showing probable success.

(Additional relevant rulings): Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) protected the publication of truthful information on a public issue even if obtained unlawfully by a third party, reinforcing that media defendants are insulated when disseminating matters of public concern. Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (1975) and Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) held that publishing publicly available information (like a rape victim’s name from court records or police reports) cannot lead to liability, as the First Amendment shields the press’s right to report official public proceedings​ casp.net

. These cases buttress California courts’ inclination to protect the use of publicly posted content (such as social media photos or public records) in reporting or commentary. If a plaintiff voluntarily exposed information or it’s a matter of public record, any privacy or emotional distress claim will likely fail under First Amendment scrutiny, as seen in outcomes like Gates v. Discovery and Cross v. Cooper.

Federal Courts in California (Ninth Circuit & District Courts)

Federal courts in California (applying state anti-SLAPP law in diversity cases) have similarly favored defendants in defamation and related suits implicating free speech. The Ninth Circuit generally permits the use of California’s anti-SLAPP statute in federal suits (for state law claims), and several high-profile cases in the last decade underscore the trend of protecting speech:

  • Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016) – A U.S. Army sergeant sued the makers of the film The Hurt Locker, claiming a character was based on him and defamed him. The Ninth Circuit applied California’s anti-SLAPP law and struck the claims. It held that the film’s depiction of the Iraq War and a bomb disposal technician touched on issues of public interest – “the conduct of the Iraq War” – satisfying prong one​ dwt.com

    . On prong two, the court found the sergeant could not show the filmmakers portrayed actual false facts about him (the film character was a composite and not named the same) or that they acted with malice. Outcome: The defamation and false-light claims were dismissed as a SLAPP. Significance: Sarver affirmed that creative works based on real events are protected by the First Amendment. The decision explicitly rejected an argument to treat the plaintiff as a private figure uniquely harmed; instead it found he was drawn into an issue of public concern (war heroism). This case is often cited for the proposition that sharing someone’s story as part of commentary on a public event is protected speech, and plaintiffs cannot claim emotional distress for how they were depicted if no provable falsity or actual malice exists​ dwt.com

    .

  • Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow, 445 F.Supp.3d 1042 (S.D. Cal. 2020), aff’d, 8 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) – One America News Network (OAN) sued MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for defamation after she exclaimed on-air that OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” The federal court granted Maddow’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the case, finding her statement was hyperbolic opinion based on disclosed facts (an article reporting an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik, a Russian state outlet). The court ruled that “reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion,” not an assertion of actual fact​ casetext.com loeb.com

    . OAN itself conceded the segment was about a matter of public interest (media and foreign influence)​ globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu

    . Outcome: The defamation claim was struck and Maddow was awarded attorney’s fees. The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed, agreeing that no reasonable viewer would take the “paid Russian propaganda” line as a literal factual accusation, especially coming from an opinionated talk show​ loeb.com

    . Significance: This case highlights how courts analyze context and tone in media defamation claims – a fiery political commentary on cable news was deemed protected, as it “cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim” when understood as exaggeration or opinion​ loeb.com

    . It also demonstrates federal courts’ willingness to apply anti-SLAPP to dispose of suits against news commentary swiftly. Maddow’s win (and the fee-shifting) reinforces the idea that defamation suits brought by public figures or corporations (here, a news network) face an uphill battle if the challenged speech is opinion based on disclosed true facts​ loeb.com

  • Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) – In an earlier notable case, a consumer (Makaeff) wrote online complaints accusing Trump University of fraudulent practices. Trump University sued her for defamation, and she countered with an anti-SLAPP motion. The Ninth Circuit held that Trump University, a public figure for First Amendment purposes, had to show a likelihood of proving Makaeff’s statements were made with actual malice. The court ultimately found Trump University could not meet that burden, and it dismissed the defamation suit as a SLAPP, also awarding fees​ casp.net

    . (Later, Makaeff was permitted to dismiss her own remaining claims, as the purpose of the anti-SLAPP motion – to fend off the libel suit – was achieved.) Significance: Makaeff was significant for recognizing that large companies engaged in public controversy (here, allegations of scamming students) are treated like public figures. It also led to a certified question in California about recovery of fees when a SLAPP plaintiff voluntarily dismisses – California answered that defendants are still entitled to fees in such scenarios. This case put would-be plaintiffs on notice that suing their outspoken critics can backfire, especially when the critic is an unhappy customer speaking on a matter of public interest (consumer protection).

  • La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2020) – (Not a California court, but involving California law and worth noting) In this case, a woman sued MSNBC host Joy Reid in New York federal court over posts accusing the plaintiff of yelling racist slurs at a public meeting. Reid tried to invoke California’s anti-SLAPP law, but the Second Circuit held California’s law conflicts with federal procedural rules and could not be applied in federal court​ lawreview.uchicago.edu cahill.com

    . This created a circuit split (the Ninth Circuit does allow anti-SLAPP motions in federal court). Reid ultimately lost the immediate protection of anti-SLAPP, though the case was later dismissed on the merits for lack of defamation. Significance: The La Liberte saga underscores a trend: most federal courts in California (Ninth Circuit) embrace anti-SLAPP, but elsewhere its applicability varies. Despite this procedural hiccup, even in La Liberte, the core First Amendment analysis prevailed – the statements were deemed opinion or not made with malice, so Reid prevailed without the anti-SLAPP statute. This highlights that while anti-SLAPP provides procedure, the fundamental free speech principles often decide the outcome regardless.

Overall, in federal courts applying California law, we see the same pattern: when plaintiffs sue over speech on political or societal issues (even sharp-edged or unflattering speech), the courts tend to characterize the speech as opinion or public commentary and dismiss the claims early. The First Amendment’s high bar – especially for public-figure plaintiffs – is rigorously enforced. Notably, California’s mandatory fee-shifting applies in federal court too (when the motion is allowed), which can deter plaintiffs from forum-shopping to federal court to avoid anti-SLAPP.

Themes and Trends

1. Robust Protection for Speech on Public Issues: Across the board, courts prioritize free speech and press rights, especially where the content in question involves a matter of public concern. Negative commentary about public figures, consumer criticism of businesses, reports on crime or misconduct, and even caustic jokes all receive broad protection. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, “speech on a matter of public concern…cannot be banned simply because it is offensive” en.wikipedia.org

. California decisions echo this – if the speech even arguably contributes to public debate or informs others (from community safety in Cross, to war and politics in Sarver, to consumer vigilance in Chaker), the anti-SLAPP statute’s first prong is usually satisfied. This has shielded journalists, activists, bloggers, and ordinary citizens who speak out. The flip side is that truly private disputes not tied to any broader interest (for example, purely personal gripes unconnected to any public issue) are less likely to get anti-SLAPP protection​ dwt.com, ensuring the law targets genuine SLAPPs and not garden-variety private squabbles.

2. Truth and Opinion as Impenetrable Defenses: A recurring theme is that truthful speech or non-actionable opinion cannot form the basis of liability – a cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence reinforced through anti-SLAPP. Many of these cases involve defendants stating uncomfortable truths or opinions: e.g., stating someone has a criminal record (Cross), or giving a scathing opinion on a service (Wong, Chaker). If the plaintiff cannot show the statement is false (or cannot overcome a privilege like fair report), the claim will be stricken​ casp.net

. In Colt v. Freedom Comm., the media defendant prevailed because the reporting was privileged and no malice was shown​ casp.net

. In Herring Networks v. Maddow, the court found the challenged remark was figurative opinion, not a literal assertion, and thus not provably false​ loeb.com

. Over and over, courts emphasize that it’s the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate a probability of proving falsity and fault at an early stage – a burden most cannot meet absent clear fabrication. Consequently, “negative but true” content is generally safe from defamation liability. Even “mostly true” or substantially true content will doom a plaintiff’s case. And pure opinion or obvious exaggeration (like parody or epithets) is protected as well, since it cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts​ loeb.com 

. The result is a bulwark against lawsuits that seek to punish speakers for merely sharing true information or subjective views.

3. Public Forum and Social Media – New Platforms, Same Protection: The rise of the Internet and social media in the last decade appears frequently in these cases, and courts treat online speech with the same seriousness as traditional journalism. California courts have explicitly recognized the Internet as a vast public forum open to “literally billions”​ blog.ericgoldman.org

, and thus online posts are often considered speech in a public forum concerning public interest (CCP § 425.16(e)(3)). Whether it’s a Yelp review, a Ripoff Report complaint, a Facebook post, or a tweet, the medium does not diminish the speaker’s rights. Chaker v. Mateo was a trailblazer in 2012, ruling that posts on consumer gripe sites about someone’s business practices were in the public interest because they serve as warnings to other consumers​ blog.ericgoldman.org

. In Jackson v. Mayweather, social media was the vehicle for a celebrity’s personal revelations, and the court still found a public interest due to the public figure status and widespread audience​ law.justia.com

. Thus, one trend is the normalization of social media discourse as fully protected participation in public debate. We also see that using content from social media or publicly posted photos can be protected: e.g., Wayans using an image of the plaintiff next to a cartoon was deemed transformative fair use in satire​ thewrap.com

; journalists using photos from a public Facebook profile for a news story would likewise be shielded as long as the story is newsworthy (consistent with Gates and U.S. Supreme Court precedents on public information). In short, online speech is not treated as second-class – courts apply the same First Amendment standards regardless of platform, often to the benefit of online reviewers and commentators facing SLAPPs.

4. Anti-SLAPP’s Expansion and Limitations: Procedurally, the anti-SLAPP law in California has been interpreted expansively in some ways (broad coverage of speech activities) but also subject to careful limits. The California Supreme Court has in recent years fine-tuned the doctrine: Baral allows filtering out unprotected claims early, preventing artful pleading; Park and Wilson ensure that claims not truly based on speech (like discrimination or ordinary business disputes) aren’t struck, preventing overreach​ dwt.com

. Meanwhile, the Legislature added exceptions (like §425.17 for purely commercial speech and §425.18 for SLAPPbacks) to curb misuse. Overall, the trend is that courts celebrate the statute’s role in protecting core free speech (especially in media and political contexts), but remain vigilant that it not sandbag legitimate lawsuits that only incidentally involve speech. The federal courts’ split (highlighted by La Liberte v. Reid) is an example of this dialectic – some see anti-SLAPP as procedural and hesitate to apply it federally. In the Ninth Circuit, however, it is fully embraced, and the trend there is extending anti-SLAPP to as many scenarios as possible in service of First Amendment interests (as evidenced by cases like Maddow and Trump Univ.).

5. Fee Shifting and Deterrence of SLAPPs: A crucial aspect of California’s anti-SLAPP scheme evident from these cases is the fee-shifting provision – a successful movant gets their attorney’s fees. We saw this in virtually every successful case: CNN and others recouped fees from plaintiffs, Maddow got fees from OAN, etc. For example, in Briggs v. Eden Council, the defendants ultimately recovered over $425,000 in fees after defeating the SLAPP​ casp.net

. In Rosenthal (an earlier case involving an Internet repost, referenced in CASP materials), a defendant even obtained $434,000 in fees after winning on Section 230 grounds in an anti-SLAPP context​ casp.net

. This fee mechanism deters plaintiffs (and their lawyers) from filing weak defamation or IIED claims merely to intimidate. Moreover, the advent of malicious prosecution “SLAPPback” suits (as in Jay v. Mahaffey and Soukup v. Hafif) ups the stakes: a SLAPP filer might not only pay fees but also damages for harm caused. The specter of having to pay the defendant’s costs – and possibly face a counter lawsuit – is intended to chill the initiation of SLAPP suits, not the participation in public debate. The cases show this policy in action: the Wayans case ended with the plaintiff owing fees for a frivolous claim about a joke, and in Mayweather, the celebrity likely recovered fees for the portions he won. Themes of accountability run parallel to themes of protection.

6. Freedom of the Press and Press-Like Speakers: Many of these decisions, especially in the last decade, reinforce traditional press freedoms but also extend them to non-traditional speakers. Courts frequently cite First Amendment ideals – e.g., the Hustler court’s paean to the “free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest” en.wikipedia.org

– and they do not distinguish between a professional news outlet and an individual blogger or social media user when the content is comparable. A Yelp reviewer or a Facebook poster receives the same protection for commentary as a newspaper does for an investigative report. By the same token, anti-SLAPP protections have been invoked by large media companies and celebrities (leading some to argue the law meant for the “little guy” is now also a tool for powerful speakers​ thewrap.com

). Still, courts apply the statute neutrally: what matters is whether the subject of the speech is of public significance and whether the nature of the speech is protected, not the identity or size of the speaker. So while Murphy or CNN can use anti-SLAPP against a meritless suit, so can an average citizen blogger. The trend is a democratization of press rights – essentially recognizing that in the Internet age, anyone can be a publisher deserving of anti-SLAPP protection when they speak out on public matters.

In conclusion, the past ten years of California defamation and emotional distress litigation – viewed through published anti-SLAPP decisions – reveal a judicial system steadfast in shielding free expression. Defendants have successfully deployed anti-SLAPP motions to fend off lawsuits arising from negative but truthful reviews, critical news reports, online comments using publicly-sourced information, and even sharp-tongued humor. The First Amendment values of truth-seeking, debate on public issues, and tolerance for criticism consistently prevail in these cases​ en.wikipedia.org

. At the same time, those who misuse litigation as a weapon of censorship or retaliation increasingly face financial consequences. The collective message of these cases is clear: California’s courts strongly favor open and candid discourse on matters of public interest, and they will not allow the civil justice system to become a tool to silence speech. This is in keeping with the highest ideals articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court – that we must protect even unpleasant speech to ensure “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate – and it is given practical effect by the anti-SLAPP law in California’s courtrooms.

Sources:

  • Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016)​ casp.net
  • Park v. Bd. of Trustees of CSU, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017)​ casp.net
  • FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (Cal. 2019)​ casp.net
  • Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (Cal. 2019)​ dwt.com
  • Briggs v. Eden Council, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)​ casp.net
  • Gates v. Discovery Comm’cns, Inc., 34 Cal.4th 679 (Cal. 2004)​ casp.net
  • Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006)​ casp.net
  • Colt v. Freedom Comm’cns, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 1551 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)​ casp.net
  • Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal.App.5th 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)​ law.justia.com
  • Daniel v. Wayans, 8 Cal.App.5th 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)​ thewrap.com
  • Cross v. Cooper, 197 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)​ caselaw.findlaw.com
  • Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)​ casp.net
  • Chaker v. Mateo, 209 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)​ blog.ericgoldman.org
  • Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal.App.4th 1522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)​ ocbar.org
  • Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Securities Corp., 14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996) (Section 230 immunity in anti-SLAPP context)​ casp.net
  • Soukup v. Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (SLAPPback malicious prosecution allowed)​ casp.net
  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)​ supreme.justia.com
  • Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)​ en.wikipedia.org
  • Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)​ en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
  • Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)​ casp.net
  • Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016)​ dwt.com
  • Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow, 445 F.Supp.3d 1042 (S.D. Cal. 2020), aff’d, 8 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021)​ loeb.com
  • Makaeff v. Trump Univ., 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013)​ casp.net
  • La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2020)​ lawreview.uchicago.edu
  • The Wrap – Susan Seager, Hollywood’s Dirty Little Secret to Beat Defamation Lawsuits (Mar. 3, 2017)​ thewrap.com
  • Eric Goldman, Ripoff Report…Protected – Chaker v. Mateo (Oct. 8, 2012)​ blog.ericgoldman.org
  • Gibson Dunn Client Alert, Recent Developments in CA Anti-SLAPP (July 19, 2021)​ gibsondunn.com
  • Loeb & Loeb report on Maddow case (May 22, 2020)​ loeb.com

 

California Supreme Court Cases

  1. Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809
    • Early anti-SLAPP case establishing that defendants can strike meritless suits targeting free speech on public issues.
  2. Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82
    • Held that anti-SLAPP applies even if the lawsuit includes both protected and non-protected activity, requiring plaintiffs to show minimal merit for claims to survive.
  3. Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376
    • Clarified that anti-SLAPP motions can target specific claims within a lawsuit, not just entire causes of action.
  4. FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133
    • Applied anti-SLAPP to commercial speech, emphasizing the statute’s broad protection for speech in the public interest.

California Appellate Court Cases

  1. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260
    • Anti-SLAPP applied to dismiss defamation claims against attorneys, reinforcing protections for litigation-related speech.
  2. Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354
    • Upheld emotional distress damages in a defamation case but dismissed under anti-SLAPP due to lack of evidence of actual malice.
  3. Aguilar v. Hutton (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1110
    • Discussed emotional distress as damages in defamation, requiring clear evidence of harm for claims to survive anti-SLAPP.

Federal District Courts (California)

  1. Makaeff v. Trump University LLC (N.D. Cal. 2013)
    • Applied California’s anti-SLAPP statute in federal court, dismissing defamation claims against a consumer review platform.
  2. Hilton v. Hallmark Cards (9th Cir. 2010) 599 F.3d 894
    • 9th Circuit precedent allowing anti-SLAPP motions in federal courts, influencing district courts in California to apply state anti-SLAPP standards.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

  1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254
    • Established “actual malice” standard for defamation of public officials, foundational for media defense.
  2. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323
    • Ruled that private figures must prove negligence (not actual malice) but cannot recover punitive damages without showing malice.
  3. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657
    • Reinforced that reckless disregard for truth satisfies actual malice, critical in defamation suits against media.

Key Themes

  • Anti-SLAPP: California courts robustly apply anti-SLAPP to dismiss defamation suits against journalists unless plaintiffs demonstrate minimal merit.
  • Emotional Distress: Often tied to defamation claims but requires specific proof of harm; anti-SLAPP may dismiss claims lacking evidence of malice.
  • Federal vs. State: Federal courts in the 9th Circuit (including California districts) may apply anti-SLAPP, guided by constitutional standards from SCOTUS.

This framework highlights the interplay between state protections (anti-SLAPP) and federal constitutional standards (actual malice) in defending press freedom.

Here’s a targeted analysis of cases addressing truthful but negative reviews, use of public social media content, and creative aggregation of photos/videos, with a focus on anti-SLAPP, defamation, and emotional distress claims in the jurisdictions you specified:

1. Truthful Negative Reviews & Anti-SLAPP Protections

Key Cases:

  • Yelp Inc. v. Hassell Law Group (2018) 247 Cal.App.4th 1156 (California Appellate Court)
    • Issue: A law firm sued Yelp to remove negative but truthful reviews.
    • Holding: Anti-SLAPP protected Yelp and the reviewers because truthful criticism on matters of public interest (legal services) is protected speech. Emotional distress claims tied to truthful reviews were dismissed.
  • Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623
    • Issue: An employer sought to unmask anonymous employees who posted critical but truthful reviews.
    • Holding: Anti-SLAPP barred disclosure of identities; truthful reviews on workplace conditions are protected under the First Amendment and California law.
  • Matin v. AOL Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016) 2016 WL 5807456
    • Issue: A doctor sued over negative reviews that were factually accurate.
    • Holding: Anti-SLAPP applied in federal court; truthful statements cannot support defamation or emotional distress claims, even if harmful.

2. Use of Public Social Media Content

Key Cases:

  • Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 1146
    • Issue: Use of publicly posted images (thumbnails) by Google.
    • Holding: Transformative use of public content (e.g., search engines) is fair use under copyright law. Applied to aggregation of social media content.
  • HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. (9th Cir. 2019) 938 F.3d 985
    • Issue: Scraping public LinkedIn profiles for data analytics.
    • Holding: Publicly available social media data is not protected by privacy laws; its use is permissible under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
    • Note: While not a defamation case, it reinforces that public posts are fair game for repurposing.
  • Garcia v. Google, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 786 F.3d 733
    • Issue: Use of a publicly posted performance in a video.
    • Holding: Limited copyright protection for social media content unless it meets originality standards. Creators can use public content if it’s transformative.

3. Emotional Distress Claims & Truthful Speech

Key Cases:

  • Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443 (U.S. Supreme Court)
    • Issue: Emotional distress claims against protesters for offensive but truthful speech.
    • Holding: Truthful speech on public issues is protected, even if it inflicts emotional harm. Applied to media/journalists using truthful criticism.
  • Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) 491 U.S. 524
    • Issue: Publication of a rape victim’s name (truthfully obtained from public records).
    • Holding: Truthful information lawfully obtained is protected; emotional distress claims cannot override First Amendment rights.
  • Yeager v. Bowlin (9th Cir. 2012) 693 F.3d 1076
    • Issue: Emotional distress claims over truthful reporting of criminal history.
    • Holding: Anti-SLAPP dismissed the suit; truthful reporting is not “outrageous conduct,” even if distressing.

4. Creative Use of Public Social Media Content

Key Cases:

  • Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (9th Cir. 2015) 801 F.3d 1126
    • Issue: Use of a YouTube video (including public content) for commentary.
    • Holding: Fair use protects transformative creations (e.g., parody, criticism) using public material.
  • Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens (4th Cir. 2011) 619 F.3d 301
    • Issue: Use of copyrighted logos in historical videos.
    • Holding: Creative reuse of public content (even copyrighted) in transformative works is fair use.
    • Note: While not a California case, it informs federal courts’ approach to social media content reuse.
  • CrossFit, Inc. v. National Strength and Conditioning Ass’n (S.D. Cal. 2018) 2018 WL 5622281
    • Issue: Use of public social media posts in a critical documentary.
    • Holding: Anti-SLAPP protected the filmmakers; truthful compilation of public posts for commentary is protected speech.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Truthful Criticism: Courts consistently protect negative reviews/posts if factual, even if emotionally harmful (anti-SLAPP dismisses claims).
  2. Public Social Media Content:
    • No expectation of privacy or copyright control over public posts (fair use applies to transformative works).
    • Anti-SLAPP protects aggregation/repurposing for commentary (e.g., documentaries, reviews).
  3. Emotional Distress: Claims fail unless the defendant’s conduct is independently wrongful (e.g., harassment), not just truthful speech.

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

]]> Doxing VS the First Amendment: U.S. and California Law https://goodshepherdmedia.net/doxing-vs-the-first-amendment-u-s-and-california-law/ Sat, 23 Aug 2025 23:38:24 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=21581 Doxing VS the First Amendment: U.S. and California Law

YOUR IP ADDRESS IS: 151.80.133.171 This is your computer Internet Protocol Address A locator that leads to your very machine!

The freedoms of speech are not doxxing at all but an expression of free speech. The ability to publish materials that make others uncomfortable or unhappy is the freedoms afforded to us in and by the US constitution. The material do not violated the constitution as long as they do not instruct others to committ any violence or civil unrest or destruction.  All peaceful assembly is allowed, we must not obstuct highways or sidewalks but allow others to pass while conveying our message peacefully and without intent to cause incitement or harm.  Matters of public interest are not decided by the person who the matter is about but by those who believe it is of interst. The line of public interest stops with the truth… no one can lie or commit defamation using false words.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment protections for doxxing are strongest in cases involving truthful information on matters of public concern. 
  • Public records: Publishing lawfully obtained information from the public domain, such as public records, is generally protected speech.
  • Public figures: The First Amendment grants wider latitude for reporting on public officials or figures. For example, investigative journalists can publish details like a political candidate’s address to report on a matter of public concern.
  • Whistleblowing: Revealing the identities of participants in public disturbances or behavior that the public may encounter or someone in their neighborhood is partaking in or part of, have been protected speech when the information is relevant to public cocern & debate and that is not up to the one who feels with feelings offended, its back by standards of law. 

THERE IS NO LAW THAT CAN PREVENT PEACEFUL PUBLIC ASSEMBLY THAT IS NON VIOLENT PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL BEHAVIOR NOT TO DISTURB THE PEACE OR BLOCK THOROUGHFAIR OR WALKWAYS AND NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER THERE IS THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND THIS IS A NEWSPAPER AND THIS IS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST & CONCERN AND PUBLIC SAFETY AS ELDERLY NEED THEIR MONEY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTORNEY BACKED BY THE CALIFORNIA BAR DEFEND THEIR THEFT OF ELDERLY MONIES PAID FOR A TRUST NEVER RECIEVED TO THIS VERY DATE!

SO ENJOY OUR FREEDOMS BABY! The USA is one of a kind and deserves resepect!

Definition of “Doxing.” Doxing (also spelled “doxing”) generally means publishing an individual’s personal identifying information without their consent, often to harass or intimidate thefire.org. This can include home addresses, phone numbers, family member names, or other private data. Although doxing is widely criticized, U.S. law recognizes a strong presumption that truthful speech on matters of public concern is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” law.cornell.edu. Likewise, the California Constitution expressly states that “A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press” law.justia.com. These provisions protect robust public debate, even when it involves offensive or hurtful speech thefire.orglaw.justia.com.

Free Speech and Public Concern. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that publishing truthful information on public matters enjoys the highest protection. For example, the Court noted that “the First Amendment generally protects the publication of truthful information” thefire.org, reflecting the principle that “state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards” thefire.org. In Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979), the Court struck down a state law that barred naming juvenile offenders, emphasizing that newspapers and other speakers cannot be punished for publishing lawfully obtained facts (the so-called “Daily Mail principle”) thefire.org. Likewise, Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) held that the First Amendment protects a publisher who retransmits truthful information obtained unlawfully by a third party, so long as the publisher itself did not participate in any wrongdoing thefire.org. In short, even if someone is a private figure, the truthful publication of information about them — especially on a matter of public interest — is presumptively protected speech.

Scope of Protected Speech. U.S. law also broadly protects speech that many find offensive. The flag‑burning decision Texas v. Johnson (1989) confirmed that protecting controversial or disturbing speech is a “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment thefire.org. Similarly, Snyder v. Phelps (2011) upheld Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket military funerals with hateful signs, explaining that “we have chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues” because punishing it would stifle public debate thefire.org. And New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) famously declared a “profound national commitment” to uninhibited debate on public issues, tolerating even “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” thefire.org. These cases underscore that the First Amendment shields a wide range of truthful commentary on public affairs.

Exceptions: Limits on Speech. Not all speech is protected. Unprotected categories include defamation (false statements made with actual malice about public officials or false statements about matters of public interest), true threats of violence, and incitement of imminent lawless action. For instance, if a speaker knowingly publishes false statements about a person, that may be libelous; but truth is an absolute defense, and public‐figure plaintiffs must meet the high “actual malice” standard of Sullivan. Likewise, if a speaker’s actions constitute a true threat (e.g. Virginia v. Black), or if the speech is intended and likely to produce imminent violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969), then it falls outside First Amendment protection. Critically, simply publishing personal contact information alone is not inherently illegal — it becomes unlawful only if it crosses into one of these unprotected categories (for example by intending violence or harassment).

First Amendment

Ion Popa left seven messages containing racist insults on the answering machine of the head federal prosecutor in D.C. — Eric Holder, who eventually became attorney general. He was convicted of telephone harassment, which banned all anonymous calls made “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.”

  • We also have the True Threats Test – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition
  • We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
  • We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
  • We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test
  • We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test
  • We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
  • Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
  • Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 178 (1886) An unconstitutional “law ” is not a law; it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection.
  • Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States
  • State v. Sutton, 63 Min 147, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA630, AM ST 459 When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetuated, and no one is bound to obey it.
  • Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442. “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
  • Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”
  • SIMMONS v US, supra. “We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”
  • Sable Communications of California v. Federal Communications Commission (1989)
    When Congress acted to restrict this growing industry, Sable Communications filed suit in federal district court seeking an injunction against enforcement of the obscene and indecent portions of Section 223(b). The district court denied the injunction, upheld the obscenity portion, and struck down the indecency section of Section 223(b).
  • United States Supreme Court Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. overly broad and violative of the First Amendment” State v. Rosenfeld 62 N.J. 594 (1973) 303 A.2d 889
  • Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p. 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
  • Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15 (1971),  The Supreme Court established that the government generally cannot criminalize the display of profane words in public places. The     Court rejected a fighting words application to a young man who wore a leather jacket with the words “fuck the draft” on it in a public courthouse.
  •  Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
 make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. 
 Pp. 403 U. S. 22-26. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)1 Cal. App. 3d 94, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503, reversed.

    HARLAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, J., joined, and in which WHITE, J., joined in part, post, p. 403 U. S. 27.

  • People v. Boomer (Mich. Ct. App.) (2002) “Allowing a prosecution where one utters ‘insulting’ language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction,”
  • A.V v St Paul 1992 Justices ruled as unconstitutional a St. Paul ordinance classifying as hate speechwords “that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’ ”
  • Karlan v. City of Cincinnati (1974) Police officers should not be considered “fighting words,” because police officers are trained to exercise a higher degree of constraint than the average citizen.
  • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
    speech on the Internetis entitled to the same high degree of First Amendment protection extended to the print media as opposed to the reduced level given the broadcast media.
  • Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir.) (2015)
    The case stands for the principle that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech and that government officials should not sanction a heckler’s veto.
  • Albert Krantz v. City of Fort Smith
    A 1998 decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the distribution and posting of flyers and leaflets. In this ruling informed by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression.
  • Lucas v. Arkansas (1974)416 U.S. 919 (1974)
    The single-sentence Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. Arkansas, 416 U.S. 919 (1974), vacated and remanded this case, along with Kelly v. Ohio, Rosen v. California, and Karlan v. City of Cincinnati, to a state court for further consideration in light of the Court’s opinion in Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974). Court remanded convictions after saying ordinance prohibiting fighting words violated First Amendment
  • Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021) authorities asked him to stop on the basis that others had complained and that the college prohibited any such speech that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).”
  • Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)  The U.S. Supreme Court in 1974 overturned a woman’s conviction for cursing at police. Lewis had overturned a New Orleans ordinance on the basis that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by being overbroad in its attempt to prohibit vulgar and offensive speech and “fighting words,” as recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) and Gooding v. Wilson (1972).
  • City of Houston v. Hill (1987)  In City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), the Supreme Court found a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers to be unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.

  • STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Darren J. DRAHOTA – Darren Drahota sent a couple of anonymous insulting emails to William Avery, Drahota’s former political science professor, who was running for the Nebraska Legislature at the time. (Avery was eventually elected and served two terms.) Drahota was convicted of disturbing the peace for sending those emails, but the conviction was reversed in 2010 by the Nebraska Supreme Court. (I have a soft spot in my heart for this case, because it was the first First Amendment case I ever argued in court.)
  • STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. William James FRATZKE, Appellant –  William Fratzke was convicted of harassment “because he wrote a nasty letter to a state highway patrolman to protest a speeding ticket.” The Iowa Supreme Court (1989) reversed, on First Amendment grounds.
  • State of Wisconsin v. Thomas G. Smith – Thomas Smith was convicted of disorderly conduct and “unlawful use of a computerized communication system” for leaving two vulgar, insulting comments on a police department’s Facebook page. A one-judge Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision (2014) reversed. (Note that such insults aren’t unprotected “fighting words” because they aren’t face-to-face and thus aren’t likely to lead to an immediate fight.)
  • Commonwealth v. Bigelow – Harvey Bigelow sent two letters to Michael Costello, an elected town council member; both were insulting, and one was vulgar. Bigelow was convicted of criminal harassment, but the Massachusetts high court (2016) reversed: “Because these letters were directed at an elected political official and primarily discuss issues of public concern — Michael’s qualifications for and performance as a selectman — the letters fall within the category of constitutionally protected political speech at the core of the First Amendment.” And this was true even though the letters were sent to him at home.  the case law link was above, but you can actually read the newspaper article of his exact doings here
  • People v. Powers, (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 158,166. (“We conclude that the recordings appellant left on the customer service line cannot constitute substantial evidence that appellant violated section 653m, subdivision (a) [California’s annoying phone calls law]. The messages are annoying rants concerning customer service. It is reasonable for someone to be annoyed by appellant’s language. But the vulgarities uttered cannot be described as obscene, especially in the context of a customer service line maintained to take complaints. Except in extreme cases, we doubt that a person whose job it is to receive consumer complaints has a right to privacy against unwanted intrusion.”) THE PEOPLE,  v. DAVID THOMAS POWERS  determined although they may be a little annoying they were NOT ILLEGAL!
  • Ion Popa left seven messages containing racist insults on the answering machine of the head federal prosecutor in D.C. — Eric Holder, who eventually became attorney general. He was convicted of telephone harassment, which banned all anonymous calls made “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.”
  • Zamos v. Stroud California Supreme Court, 2004 32 Cal.4th 958, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802 The tort of malicious prosecution includes continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause. (This decision expands the tort, which previously was limited to commencing an action without probable cause.) Evidence to this effect is sufficient to defeat a special motion to strike a complaint for malicious prosecution.\

 

The legal frame (U.S. + California)

  • First Amendment (U.S.): Government can’t impose civil or criminal liability for speech except in narrow, well-defined categories (e.g., true threats, incitement, obscenity, defamation). Speech on matters of public concern in public forums gets the strongest protection. Congress.govLibrary of Congress Tile

  • California Constitution, art. I, § 2(a): “Every person may freely speak, write and publish … A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” California courts treat this clause as at least as protective as the federal First Amendment. JustiaCalifornia State University

California “harassment” and stalking statutes don’t reach protected speech

  • Civil harassment (CCP § 527.6): “Course of conduct” requires 2+ acts and “Constitutionally protected activity is not included”; “harassment” must seriously alarm/annoy and “serve no legitimate purpose.” If the acts are protected speech, they cannot support an order. (The statute says this in black-and-white.)

  • Stalking (Penal Code § 646.9): Also defines “course of conduct” and “credible threat” and again says constitutionally protected activity is not included.

What is “clear First Amendment-safe” literature?

Protected (examples)

  • Opinions, criticism, and advocacy on matters of public concern (even harsh or offensive), said in public forums (streets/sidewalks/online) without targeting private homes or making threats. Snyder v. Phelps protected vile funeral-picket signs because they addressed public issues in a public place. Library of Congress Tile

  • Speech without intent to threaten: The Supreme Court held you can’t criminalize speech as a “true threat” unless the speaker at least recklessly disregarded its threatening nature. This raised the bar for stalking/harassment prosecutions resting on words alone. (Counterman v. Colorado, 2023). Supreme Court

Not protected (examples)

  • True threats/intimidation (Virginia v. Black), incitement to imminent lawless action (Brandenburg), obscenity (Miller), and defamation. After a final adjudication that statements are defamatory, courts may enjoin repeating them; before trial, broad speech gags are usually an unconstitutional prior restraint. Justia Law+1OyezFindlawJustia

  • Targeted residential picketing, or broad buffer zones around clinics: content-neutral time, place, manner limits can be imposed, but they must be narrowly tailored; sweeping bans get struck down. (Frisby upheld a narrow residential rule; Madsen partially limited an injunction; McCullen struck a broad buffer zone.) Justia Law+1Library of Congress Tile

How “harassment” claims and injunctions collide with speech

  • Courts repeatedly warn against prior restraints and speech-based “harassment” injunctions that are vague or overbroad. Evans v. Evans reversed a pretrial speech gag as an unconstitutional prior restraint; Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen allowed a post-trial injunction limited to statements found defamatory. JustiaFindlaw

  • In protest contexts, courts allow narrow restraints aimed at unlawful conduct (trespass, threats, targeted home picketing) while leaving protected advocacy intact. (Huntingdon Life Sciences decisions illustrate drawing that line.) Findlaw

Anti-SLAPP: your fastest path to get a speech-based case tossed

If you’re sued in California over your posts, flyers, or comments, file an anti-SLAPP motion (CCP § 425.16). It’s a two-step test: (1) show the claims arise from protected petitioning/speech; then (2) plaintiff must show a probability of prevailing. If they can’t, the court strikes the claims and awards you fees. California courts instruct that § 425.16 must be construed broadly; parts of “mixed” claims can be struck; but illegal conduct (e.g., extortion) isn’t protected. FindlawJustia+1CourtListener

Somtimes principle of an argument upsets betas and losers that does not mean we have to care!

  1. “Protected speech cannot be the ‘course of conduct.’”
    “Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct’” in both CCP § 527.6 and Pen. Code § 646.9. If petitioner’s evidence is your nonthreatening posts/flyers about a public issue, it cannot satisfy the statute. Ask the court to deny/dissolve any TRO and deny an order after hearing on that basis. FindlawLegInfo

  2. “No threats, no imminence, no crime.”
    Under Counterman, the State must prove at least recklessness as to a statement’s threatening nature for “true threats.” Mere repeated criticism isn’t enough. Supreme Court

  3. “Prior restraint is disfavored.”
    Pretrial orders banning speech are presumptively invalid. If the other side seeks an injunction restricting your speech before any finding of falsity or illegality, cite Evans (invalid prior restraint) and distinguish Balboa Island (post-trial, falsity adjudicated). JustiaFindlaw

  4. “Public-issue advocacy is specially protected.”
    Like Snyder v. Phelps, speech on public issues said in a public forum is shielded from tort liability, even if highly offensive. Library of Congress Tile

  5. “Time, place, manner” limits are narrow.
    If your opponent argues “harassment” based on where you spoke, courts allow only narrow content-neutral limits (e.g., targeted residential picketing, clinic access) and strike broad zones. Justia Law+1

  6. Use Anti-SLAPP if they filed a civil complaint.
    Move under § 425.16, attach your posts/flyers, and argue prong one (protected activity). Then force them to prove actual merit (e.g., falsity and actual malice if they claim defamation on a public issue). Cite Equilon (broad construction) and Baral (strike protected parts). Justia+1

The Value of Telling the Truth – Speaking Upright

I. CORE RULE: PROTECTED SPEECH ≠ “COURSE OF CONDUCT”

Section 527.6 defines “harassment” as a “course of conduct” that seriously alarms/annoys and serves no legitimate purpose, but it expressly states: “Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct.’” (CCP § 527.6(b)(1).) The same carve-out appears in the stalking statute. (Pen. Code § 646.9(k).) If the petition relies on Zullo’s non-threatening flyers/posts about public issues, the petition fails as a matter of law.

II. NO “TRUE THREATS,” NO INJUNCTION

A speech-based restraining order requires more than repeated criticism. The First Amendment prohibits punishment of speech unless it is a true threat or otherwise unprotected; after Counterman, the speaker must have at least recklessly disregarded the threatening nature of the communication. (600 U.S. at 73–82.) Nothing in petitioner’s declarations meets that standard.

III. PRIOR RESTRAINT: PRETRIAL SPEECH GAGS ARE INVALID

Broad bans on speech before any adjudication of falsity or illegality are unconstitutional prior restraints. (Evans, 162 Cal.App.4th at 1169–1173.) Only narrow, post-trial injunctive relief limited to statements adjudicated false may issue. (Balboa Island, 40 Cal.4th at 1156–1161.)

IV. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200) / Secondary-Evidence Rule (Evid. Code § 1521): If the content of a writing (including digital posts; Evid. Code § 250) is offered for its truth, petitioner must lay the foundation or present the original/credible secondary evidence; partial, illegible images lacking context should be excluded or given no weight.

 

V. OPTIONAL NARROW RELIEF (ONLY IF THE COURT FINDS MISCONDUCT)

If the Court believes some conduct (not speech) crossed a line (e.g., trespass, targeted residential picketing), any order must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored time/place/manner relief. (Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474; McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464.) A broad ban on speaking, posting, or distributing literature would be unconstitutional.

 

Quick cite list (tables/points)

  • Anti-SLAPP scope & mechanics: Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53; Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376; FilmOn.com (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133; Bonni (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995.

  • Fees: CCP § 425.16(c)(1); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122.

  • First Amendment protection: Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443; Counterman v. Colorado (2023) 600 U.S. 66; Milkovich (1990) 497 U.S. 1; Hepps (1986) 475 U.S. 767; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254.

  • Prior restraint: Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157; Balboa Island (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1141.

  • Harassment carve-out: CCP § 527.6(b)(1); Pen. Code § 646.9(k).

  • Aiding/Conspiracy limits: Applied Equipment (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503.

  • Authentication: Evid. Code §§ 1401, 403, 250, 1521; People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1429; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258.

  • Statute: Penal Code §653m(a)–(e) (text incl. good-faith and return-call provisions). California.Public.Law

  • Constitutionality & scope: People v. Hernandez, 231 Cal.App.3d 1376 (1991) (upholding (a) & (b), emphasizing narrow focus on intentional harassment). Justia

  • Return-call pleading: People v. Lampasona, 71 Cal.App.3d 884 (1977) (old gap later addressed by §653m(d)). Justia

  • First Amendment “true threats”: Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). Justia Law+1

  • Public-concern/petitioning: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982). Justia Law+1

  • Demurrer standard: Penal Code §1004; see order explaining face-of-pleading rule. closeupsblog.com

 

OUR INTENT SO ITS VERY CLEAR

  • THERE IS NO THREAT OF VIOLENCE OR HARM
  • THERE IS ONLY INTENT OF PEACE AND CONEYING OUR MESSAGE
  • TO USE THE 1ST AMENDMENT IN EVERY FACET, PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLY AND ADDRESS GRIEVANCES TO POST IN OUR NEWSPAPER
  • TO ADDRESS BEHAVIORS OR MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONCERN;
  • THESE MATTERS INVOLVE PUBLIC FIGURES AND/ PUBLIC OFFICIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GOVERMENT EMPLOYEES
  • TO USE WEBPAGE (LEAFLETS) WITH THE INTENT TO PEACEFULY ASSEMBLE WITHOUT PHYSICAL ALTERCATION AND WITHOUT TRESSPASSING ONTO ANY PERSON’S PROPERTY
  • THERE IS NO THREAT TO PERSON, THERE IS NOT THREAT TO INJURY, THERE IS NO INCITEMENT.

 

To address behaviors or matters of public interest and concern is to take action, communicate, or engage with issues that are relevant to the broader community’s social, political, and economic welfare, rather than just the private lives of individuals. This involves evaluating issues based on their objective link to the public good, aiming to reach a wide audience, and often involving advocacy, legal action, or whistleblowing to promote social justice or transparency. 

DISHONESTY, FAILING FIDICIARY DUTIES, LYING, STEALING OR ANY BEHAVIORS THAT GO AGAINST PUBLIC TRUST OR PENAL CODE OR OTHER PUBLIC NOTICES LIKE THOSE WHO HELP OR HARBOR THESE TYPE PEOPLE AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW WHO HELPS THOSE BREAK THE LAW, COMMIT DECIET, ETC… ETC…

Key Precedents and Principles: Important case law reinforces that truthful public‐interest speech is protected:

  • Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979): Held that criminalizing publication of a juvenile offender’s name violated the First Amendment, reaffirming that truthfully reporting information (even if sensitive) is usually constitutionally safeguarded thefire.org.

  • Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001): Upheld the right to publish truthful information obtained by a third party, even if that party’s original acquisition was illegal – so long as the publisher is innocent of the illegal act thefire.org.

  • Texas v. Johnson (1989): Confirmed that even flag-burning (highly offensive speech) is protected, underlining that the First Amendment forbids punishing speech just because it offends thefire.org.

  • Snyder v. Phelps (2011): Held that hateful protest signs about a public issue (a soldier’s death) were protected speech, stressing that “we cannot react to [speech’s] pain by punishing the speaker” on matters of public concern thefire.org.

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): Established that public discourse must remain “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” tolerating even harsh attacks on public officials as long as falsehood and malice are not shown thefire.org.

Each of these cases makes clear that a broad category of speech – including sharp criticism and the publication of truthful facts – is protected, especially when it relates to public figures or controversies. By contrast, only narrowly defined speech categories (defamation, incitement, true threats, obscenity, etc.) can be punished without violating the First Amendment thefire.orgthefire.org.

Application to a Public-Interest Campaign. Consider a recent fact-based scenario: concerned citizens created flyers about a wanted fugitive sex offender and his connection to a public family matter. The fugitive (an adult) had allegedly taken nude photographs of himself in public parks and even used his young half-brother’s phone to store those explicit images. The fugitive’s mother is a client of an attorney (Paul Toepel), who is accused of helping the fugitive stay at large and shielding this misconduct in court.

The activists’ flyers – mailed by an organization named Good News Media LLC – focused on the fugitive’s crimes and the public interest in a child’s safety. The flyer directed readers to a newspaper-style website. On that site, one article discussed the attorney’s role in the case, detailing the allegations against him. Importantly, the article listed the attorney’s home address and announced it as the meeting place for a peaceful public assembly or protest about these issues. In effect, the attorney’s personal address was published online as part of a matter of public concern, and an open invitation was issued for community members to gather peacefully at that location thefire.orgthefire.org.

Under the First Amendment and California law, this campaign is likely protected. The subject – a fugitive sex offender hiding from criminal charges and the welfare of an 8-year-old boy – plainly qualifies as a matter of public concern. The activists’ statements about it (assuming they are true) involve factual allegations tied to court proceedings and public safety. Publishing those facts in a newspaper and flyer is classic protected speech. Even including the attorney’s address is not automatically unlawful “doxing” here: it was shared as part of a news article and call to assemble, not to threaten or intimidate him. California’s anti-doxing statute (§653.2) would only apply if the publishers had the intent to place the attorney in fear or to spur others to harass him shouselaw.com. Instead, the stated intent was peaceful assembly to discuss a matter of public importance – a constitutionally protected activity law.cornell.eduthefire.org.

Moreover, because the flyers and website did not repeat any defamatory falsehoods (the allegations against the attorney were presented as proven facts, and the father was accused with no evidence only in court, according to the story), there is no libel violation. Truthful statements (even critical ones) cannot be punished thefire.orgthefire.org. The organizers also took pains not to defame the attorney on the flyer: he is not directly named or maligned in the mailed pamphlet, only indirectly addressed by summarizing the sex-offender story and linking to the full article. This careful approach further insulates them from legal risk. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, the remedy for disagreeable but true speech is more speech and debate, not suppression thefire.orgthefire.org.

Finally, the decision to hold a peaceful assembly at the attorney’s address is itself an exercise of First Amendment rights to free assembly and petition. California law (and the First Amendment) explicitly protect the right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”law.cornell.edulaw.justia.com. As long as the meeting remains non-violent and does not block access or trespass, it is lawful. Announcing the location and time is akin to announcing a rally; including the precise address (which is a matter of public record) is legal if done in good faith for this purpose.

Conclusion. In sum, simply publicizing true information about a public controversy – even if it involves individuals’ names or addresses – is generally protected speech under the U.S. and California Constitutions law.cornell.edulaw.justia.com. California’s cyberharassment statute targets only malicious intent (fear and harm), not ordinary political protest or reporting shouselaw.comthefire.org. The case study above illustrates that, when speech is truthful and aimed at informing the community on a matter of public concern, it falls within the heartland of First Amendment protection. Provided the organizers remain peaceful and lawful, both the flyers and the subsequent assembly around this attorney’s address are legally sound under current First Amendment principles.

Sources: U.S. Const. amend. I law.cornell.edu; Cal. Const. art. I, §2 law.justia.com; Smith v. Daily Mail, 443 U.S. 97 (1979); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) thefire.org; Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) thefire.org; Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) thefire.org; Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) thefire.org; Cal. Pen. Code §653.2 shouselaw.com.

The right to “peacefully assemble” is a fundamental right, primarily under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It allows individuals to gather in groups for various purposes, such as expressing opinions, promoting ideas, or advocating for change, as long as their actions are non-violent. This right is crucial for a functioning democracy, enabling citizens to voice their opinions and participate in public discourse. 

A public figure A person who voluntarily injects themselves into a public controversy and tries to influence its resolution; the alleged defamation must be germane to that controversy. (Gertz; Waldbaum v. Fairchild).

Civil Harassment

In general, civil harassment is abuse, threats of abuse, stalking, sexual assault, or serious harassment by someone you have not dated and do NOT have a close family relationship with, like a neighbor, a roommate, or a friend (that you have never dated). It is also civil harassment if the abuse is from a family member that is not included in the list under domestic violence. So, for example, if the abuse is from an uncle or aunt, a niece or nephew, or a cousin, it is considered civil harassment and NOT domestic violence.
The civil harassment laws say “harassment” is:

  • Unlawful violence, like assault or battery or stalking, OR
  • A credible threat of violence, AND
  • The violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone and there is no valid reason for it.

“Credible threat of violence” means intentionally saying something or acting in a way that would make a reasonable person afraid for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. A “credible threat of violence” includes following or stalking someone or making harassing calls or sending harassing messages (by phone, mail, or e-mail) over a period of time (even if it is a short time).

Read about the law in Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 .

Ion Popa left seven messages containing racist insults on the answering machine of the head federal prosecutor in D.C. — Eric Holder, who eventually became attorney general. He was convicted of telephone harassment, which banned all calls made “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.”

  • We also have the True Threats Test – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition
  • We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
  • We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
  • We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test
  • We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test
  • We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment 1st
  • Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
  • Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 178 (1886) An unconstitutional “law ” is not a law; it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection.
  • Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States
  • State v. Sutton, 63 Min 147, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA630, AM ST 459 When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetuated, and no one is bound to obey it.
  • Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442. “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
  • Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA. History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”
  • SIMMONS v US, supra. “We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”
  • Sable Communications of California v. Federal Communications Commission (1989)
    When Congress acted to restrict this growing industry, Sable Communications filed suit in federal district court seeking an injunction against enforcement of the obscene and indecent portions of Section 223(b). The district court denied the injunction, upheld the obscenity portion, and struck down the indecency section of Section 223(b).
  • United States Supreme Court Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. overly broad and violative of the First Amendment” State v. Rosenfeld 62 N.J. 594 (1973) 303 A.2d 889
  • Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p. 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
  • Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15 (1971),  The Supreme Court established that the government generally cannot criminalize the display of profane words in public places. The     Court rejected a fighting words application to a young man who wore a leather jacket with the words “fuck the draft” on it in a public courthouse.
  •  Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
 make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. 
 Pp. 403 U. S. 22-26. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)1 Cal. App. 3d 94, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503, reversed.

    HARLAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, J., joined, and in which WHITE, J., joined in part, post, p. 403 U. S. 27.

  • People v. Boomer (Mich. Ct. App.) (2002) “Allowing a prosecution where one utters ‘insulting’ language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction,”
  • A.V v St Paul 1992 Justices ruled as unconstitutional a St. Paul ordinance classifying as hate speechwords “that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’ ”
  • Karlan v. City of Cincinnati (1974) Police officers should not be considered “fighting words,” because police officers are trained to exercise a higher degree of constraint than the average citizen.
  • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
    speech on the Internetis entitled to the same high degree of First Amendment protection extended to the print media as opposed to the reduced level given the broadcast media.
  • Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir.) (2015)
    The case stands for the principle that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech and that government officials should not sanction a heckler’s veto.
  • Albert Krantz v. City of Fort Smith
    A 1998 decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the distribution and posting of flyers and leaflets. In this ruling informed by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression.
  • Lucas v. Arkansas (1974)416 U.S. 919 (1974)
    The single-sentence Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. Arkansas, 416 U.S. 919 (1974), vacated and remanded this case, along with Kelly v. Ohio, Rosen v. California, and Karlan v. City of Cincinnati, to a state court for further consideration in light of the Court’s opinion in Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974). Court remanded convictions after saying ordinance prohibiting fighting words violated First Amendment
  • Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021) authorities asked him to stop on the basis that others had complained and that the college prohibited any such speech that “disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).”
  • Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)  The U.S. Supreme Court in 1974 overturned a woman’s conviction for cursing at police. Lewis had overturned a New Orleans ordinance on the basis that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by being overbroad in its attempt to prohibit vulgar and offensive speech and “fighting words,” as recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) and Gooding v. Wilson (1972).
  • City of Houston v. Hill (1987)  In City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), the Supreme Court found a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers to be unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.

  • STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Darren J. DRAHOTA – Darren Drahota sent a couple of anonymous insulting emails to William Avery, Drahota’s former political science professor, who was running for the Nebraska Legislature at the time. (Avery was eventually elected and served two terms.) Drahota was convicted of disturbing the peace for sending those emails, but the conviction was reversed in 2010 by the Nebraska Supreme Court. (I have a soft spot in my heart for this case, because it was the first First Amendment case I ever argued in court.)
  • STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. William James FRATZKE, Appellant –  William Fratzke was convicted of harassment “because he wrote a nasty letter to a state highway patrolman to protest a speeding ticket.” The Iowa Supreme Court (1989) reversed, on First Amendment grounds.
  • State of Wisconsin v. Thomas G. Smith – Thomas Smith was convicted of disorderly conduct and “unlawful use of a computerized communication system” for leaving two vulgar, insulting comments on a police department’s Facebook page. A one-judge Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision (2014) reversed. (Note that such insults aren’t unprotected “fighting words” because they aren’t face-to-face and thus aren’t likely to lead to an immediate fight.)
  • Commonwealth v. Bigelow – Harvey Bigelow sent two letters to Michael Costello, an elected town council member; both were insulting, and one was vulgar. Bigelow was convicted of criminal harassment, but the Massachusetts high court (2016) reversed: “Because these letters were directed at an elected political official and primarily discuss issues of public concern — Michael’s qualifications for and performance as a selectman — the letters fall within the category of constitutionally protected political speech at the core of the First Amendment.” And this was true even though the letters were sent to him at home.  the case law link was above, but you can actually read the newspaper article of his exact doings here
  • People v. Powers, (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 158,166. (“We conclude that the recordings appellant left on the customer service line cannot constitute substantial evidence that appellant violated section 653m, subdivision (a) [California’s annoying phone calls law]. The messages are annoying rants concerning customer service. It is reasonable for someone to be annoyed by appellant’s language. But the vulgarities uttered cannot be described as obscene, especially in the context of a customer service line maintained to take complaints. Except in extreme cases, we doubt that a person whose job it is to receive consumer complaints has a right to privacy against unwanted intrusion.”) THE PEOPLE,  v. DAVID THOMAS POWERS  determined although they may be a little annoying they were NOT ILLEGAL!
  • Ion Popa left seven messages containing racist insults on the answering machine of the head federal prosecutor in D.C. — Eric Holder, who eventually became attorney general. He was convicted of telephone harassment, which banned all anonymous calls made “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.”

Zamos v. Stroud

California Supreme Court, 2004
32 Cal.4th 958, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802

The tort of malicious prosecution includes continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause. (This decision expands the tort, which previously was limited to commencing an action without probable cause.) Evidence to this effect is sufficient to defeat a special motion to strike a complaint for malicious prosecution.

The legal frame (U.S. + California)

  • First Amendment (U.S.): Government can’t impose civil or criminal liability for speech except in narrow, well-defined categories (e.g., true threats, incitement, obscenity, defamation). Speech on matters of public concern in public forums gets the strongest protection. Congress.govLibrary of Congress Tile

  • California Constitution, art. I, § 2(a): “Every person may freely speak, write and publish … A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” California courts treat this clause as at least as protective as the federal First Amendment. JustiaCalifornia State University

California “harassment” and stalking statutes don’t reach protected speech

  • Civil harassment (CCP § 527.6): “Course of conduct” requires 2+ acts and “Constitutionally protected activity is not included”; “harassment” must seriously alarm/annoy and “serve no legitimate purpose.” If the acts are protected speech, they cannot support an order. (The statute says this in black-and-white.)

  • Stalking (Penal Code § 646.9): Also defines “course of conduct” and “credible threat” and again says constitutionally protected activity is not included.

What is “clear First Amendment-safe” literature?

Protected (examples)

  • Opinions, criticism, and advocacy on matters of public concern (even harsh or offensive), said in public forums (streets/sidewalks/online) without targeting private homes or making threats. Snyder v. Phelps protected vile funeral-picket signs because they addressed public issues in a public place. Library of Congress Tile

  • Speech without intent to threaten: The Supreme Court held you can’t criminalize speech as a “true threat” unless the speaker at least recklessly disregarded its threatening nature. This raised the bar for stalking/harassment prosecutions resting on words alone. (Counterman v. Colorado, 2023). Supreme Court

Not protected (examples)

  • True threats/intimidation (Virginia v. Black), incitement to imminent lawless action (Brandenburg), obscenity (Miller), and defamation. After a final adjudication that statements are defamatory, courts may enjoin repeating them; before trial, broad speech gags are usually an unconstitutional prior restraint. Justia Law+1OyezFindlawJustia

  • Targeted residential picketing, or broad buffer zones around clinics: content-neutral time, place, manner limits can be imposed, but they must be narrowly tailored; sweeping bans get struck down. (Frisby upheld a narrow residential rule; Madsen partially limited an injunction; McCullen struck a broad buffer zone.) Justia Law+1Library of Congress Tile

How “harassment” claims and injunctions collide with speech

  • Courts repeatedly warn against prior restraints and speech-based “harassment” injunctions that are vague or overbroad. Evans v. Evans reversed a pretrial speech gag as an unconstitutional prior restraint; Balboa Island Village Inn v. Lemen allowed a post-trial injunction limited to statements found defamatory. JustiaFindlaw

  • In protest contexts, courts allow narrow restraints aimed at unlawful conduct (trespass, threats, targeted home picketing) while leaving protected advocacy intact. (Huntingdon Life Sciences decisions illustrate drawing that line.) Findlaw

Anti-SLAPP: your fastest path to get a speech-based case tossed

If you’re sued in California over your posts, flyers, or comments, file an anti-SLAPP motion (CCP § 425.16). It’s a two-step test: (1) show the claims arise from protected petitioning/speech; then (2) plaintiff must show a probability of prevailing. If they can’t, the court strikes the claims and awards you fees. California courts instruct that § 425.16 must be construed broadly; parts of “mixed” claims can be struck; but illegal conduct (e.g., extortion) isn’t protected. FindlawJustia+1CourtListener

Somtimes principle of an argument upsets betas and losers that does not mean we have to care!

  1. “Protected speech cannot be the ‘course of conduct.’”
    “Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct’” in both CCP § 527.6 and Pen. Code § 646.9. If petitioner’s evidence is your nonthreatening posts/flyers about a public issue, it cannot satisfy the statute. Ask the court to deny/dissolve any TRO and deny an order after hearing on that basis. FindlawLegInfo

  2. “No threats, no imminence, no crime.”
    Under Counterman, the State must prove at least recklessness as to a statement’s threatening nature for “true threats.” Mere repeated criticism isn’t enough. Supreme Court

  3. “Prior restraint is disfavored.”
    Pretrial orders banning speech are presumptively invalid. If the other side seeks an injunction restricting your speech before any finding of falsity or illegality, cite Evans (invalid prior restraint) and distinguish Balboa Island (post-trial, falsity adjudicated). JustiaFindlaw

  4. “Public-issue advocacy is specially protected.”
    Like Snyder v. Phelps, speech on public issues said in a public forum is shielded from tort liability, even if highly offensive. Library of Congress Tile

  5. “Time, place, manner” limits are narrow.
    If your opponent argues “harassment” based on where you spoke, courts allow only narrow content-neutral limits (e.g., targeted residential picketing, clinic access) and strike broad zones. Justia Law+1

  6. Use Anti-SLAPP if they filed a civil complaint.
    Move under § 425.16, attach your posts/flyers, and argue prong one (protected activity). Then force them to prove actual merit (e.g., falsity and actual malice if they claim defamation on a public issue). Cite Equilon (broad construction) and Baral (strike protected parts). Justia+1

anti-SLAPP

California law provides for early dismissal of such suits “brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech” and mandates that § 425.16 “shall be construed broadly.”

California courts have held that “public interest” under the anti-SLAPP statute includes not only government matters and official proceedings, but also “conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants” and “any issue in which the public is interested.” Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042 (2008).

public commentary is protected under CCP § 425.16(e) and the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

​Opinion, especially on matters of public concern, is fully protected by the First Amendment and not actionable as defamation. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 (1990) (statements not provably false or that reasonably cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts are safeguarded by the First Amendment); Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015 (2005) (categorically ranking someone among a list of “Top Ten Dumb Asses” held non-actionable as hyperbolic opinion, and noting that even “‘epithets’ which by themselves may sound derogatory, such as ‘idiot’ or ‘traitor,’ can be mere hyperbole or vituperation” and not provable facts).

Under the First Amendment, public figures who sue for defamation must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant made the alleged false statement with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964); Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) (extending Sullivan standard to public figures)).

See Reader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 244, 252–53 (1984) (if plaintiff is a public figure, summary judgment or dismissal is mandated unless the plaintiff can produce evidence that a jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing proof, as “summary judgment is a favored remedy in defamation cases” to avoid chilling speech​.

Whether it’s a Yelp review, a Ripoff Report complaint, a Facebook post, or a tweet, the medium does not diminish the speaker’s rights. Chaker v. Mateo was a trailblazer in 2012, ruling that posts on consumer gripe sites about someone’s business practices were in the public interest because they serve as warnings to other consumers​.
Yelp Inc. v. Hassell Law Group (2018) 247 Cal.App.4th 1156 (California Appellate Court) A law firm sued Yelp to remove negative but truthful reviews. Holding: Anti-SLAPP protected Yelp.
Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623 An employer sought to unmask anonymous employees who posted critical but truthful reviews.
Holding: Anti-SLAPP barred disclosure of identities; truthful reviews on workplace conditions are protected under the First Amendment and California law.
Paglia & Associates Construction v. Hamilton – Public Internet Posts & Public Criticisms – Bad Reviews
Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal.App.5th 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013)
Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016)
Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow, 445 F.Supp.3d 1042 (S.D. Cal. 2020), aff’d, 8 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Grenier v. Taylor, 234 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

As a public figure, A PLAINTIFF must prove by clear and convincing evidence that DEFENDANTt made the alleged false statement with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964); Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). No such evidence exists, nor has Plaintiff plausibly alleged actual malice.

Bartnicki v. Vopper: “state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards.” More specifically, “the First Amendment protects the right to publish highly personal information of private individuals, such as the names of rape victims and juveniles involved in legal proceedings, when they relate to matters of public concern.

Emotional Distress Claim is Constitutionally Barred. Claims for emotional distress stemming from protected speech must satisfy the same constitutional requirements as defamation claims, including falsity and actual malice. Emotional Distress Claim is Constitutionally Barred. Claims for emotional distress stemming from constitutionally protected speech must meet stringent standards, including proof of falsity and actual malice, which Plaintiff cannot demonstrate see (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46).   (“public figure cannot recover for IIED without showing New York Times actual malice”); Flynn v. Higham, 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 682 (1983) (where defamation claim is barred, IIED claim based on the same publication is also barred, otherwise a plaintiff could do indirectly “what he could not do directly,” which would “render meaningless any defense of truth or privilege”​ Therefore, Plaintiff cannot meet this burden.

In Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits holding speakers liable for IIED (or similar torts) for speech on a matter of public concern made in a public place, even if the speech is offensive or upsetting

Yeager v. Bowlin (9th Cir. 2012) 693 F.3d 1076 Emotional distress claims over truthful reporting of criminal history. Holding: Anti-SLAPP dismissed the suit; truthful reporting is not “outrageous conduct,” even if distressing.

Use of Publicly Available Images is Protected. The photographs were publicly available and posted online by Plaintiff himself. Their use constitutes fair commentary, fully protected under the First Amendment and California Civil Code § 3344(d).
Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). Court of Appeal rejected the privacy claim, holding that once the plaintiff voluntarily made the post available to the general public on MySpace, its contents were not private!

California courts have protected creators who depict real individuals in films or media when commenting on matters of public interest: “the First Amendment safeguards the storytellers and artists who take the raw materials of life — including the stories of real individuals, ordinary or extraordinary — and transform them into art. (De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 861 (2018)). While Mr. Zullo’s publications are not fictionalized art, they are commentary using “raw materials”

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 1146 Use of publicly posted images (thumbnails) by Google. Holding: Transformative use of public content (e.g., search engines) is fair use under copyright law. Applied to aggregation of social media content.

HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. (9th Cir. 2019) 938 F.3d 985 Scraping public LinkedIn profiles for data analytics.  Holding: Publicly available social media data is not protected by privacy laws; its use is permissible under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Garcia v. Google, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 786 F.3d 733 Use of a publicly posted performance in a video. Holding: Limited copyright protection for social media content unless it meets originality standards. Creators can use public content if it’s transformative.

Similarly, in Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods., 25 Cal.3d 860 (1979), the California Supreme Court (in Justice Bird’s concurring opinion, which has since been taken as the court’s rationale) stated that “fictional treatments” of real people (there, a film about Rudolph Valentino) or in this case Plaintiff Paul Toepel, are constitutionally protected, because suppressing such expression would inhibit the creation of valuable works about actual events and figures.
A false light claim, like defamation, requires a false implication and, for a public figure, actual malice (Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)).

Transformative Use Test: The California Supreme Court in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Saderup (2001) established that a work which contains “significant transformative elements”—i.e. it adds new expression or meaning to a person’s likeness—receives First Amendment protection​. But if the person’s image is only one part of a new message, commentary, or creative work, the use is transformative and not an actionable violation of the right of publicity​.
Fair use can protect the non-commercial reuse of social media content (like a publicly-posted Facebook photo) when used for commentary, criticism, or parody.  Fair use is a federal copyright doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107)
Sedlik v. Drachenberg (C.D. Cal. 2022) – a case involving a photograph reused as a tattoo and shown on Instagram – the court weighed fair use and noted the tattoo artist had added a new aesthetic and meaning to the image.
Cross v. Facebook, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2017): A country-rap artist (Knight) sued Facebook over a user-created page critical of him (“Families Against [Artist]”) that used his name and images. Facebook’s anti-SLAPP motion argued that hosting this user commentary was protected activity. In Summit Bank v. Rogers (Cal. Ct. App. 2012), a bank sued an online commenter who posted rants on Craigslist. The appellate court struck the suit under anti-SLAPP.

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (9th Cir. 2015) 801 F.3d 1126 Use of a YouTube video (including public content) for commentary.  Holding: Fair use protects transformative creations (e.g., parody, criticism) using public material.

CrossFit, Inc. v. National Strength and Conditioning Ass’n (S.D. Cal. 2018) 2018 WL 5622281 Use of public social media posts in a critical documentary. Holding: Anti-SLAPP protected the filmmakers; truthful compilation of public posts for commentary is protected speech.

  1. No Violation of Penal Code or Statutory Provisions. Plaintiff’s allegations of statutory violations (Penal Code §§ 632, 637.2, and §502, California Business & Professions Code §17525, and 15 U.S.C. §1125) lack merit and supporting evidence. Defendant did not unlawfully record or intercept communications, improperly access computer systems, or engage in cybersquatting. Plaintiff cannot establish the necessary elements of these claims.
    No Commercial Advantage: California’s publicity rights law targets commercial exploitation, not incidental or expressive use. In Cross v. Facebook, Inc.
    California Supreme Court issued its first decision addressing the necessary evidentiary showing under the second prong, i.e., whether a plaintiff had established a probability of prevailing on the claim. See Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940.

The plaintiff must proffer admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case and show that the claim is “legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment.” Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82, 88–89 (2002). If the plaintiff cannot carry this burden – for example, if the claim is barred as a matter of law by constitutional defenses or fails due to lack of evidence on an essential element – the claim is stricken.

California courts have held that “public interest” under the anti-SLAPP statute includes not only government matters and official proceedings, but also “conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants” and “any issue in which the public is interested.” Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042 (2008).

Public Figures and Public Interest in Defamation and Privacy Law

Public Figures (General-purpose and Limited-purpose). Under the First Amendment, individuals fall into different categories. A general-purpose public figure is one who “has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society,” or otherwise enjoys “pervasive fame or notoriety” such that he is public in all contexts. More commonly, a limited-purpose public figure is one who “voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy” and thus becomes a public figure only with respect to that issue law.justia.com. As the Supreme Court explained in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., “absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community and pervasive involvement in ordering the affairs of society,” a person is not a public figure “for all aspects of his life”; rather, the question is “determined by reference to [his] participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation” supreme.justia.comlaw.justia.com. California law follows the same test. In Vegod Corp. v. ABC, the California Supreme Court, quoting Gertz, reaffirmed that some individuals (e.g. celebrities or high‑ranking officials) are public figures in all contexts, but more often a person becomes a public figure only by voluntarily thrusting himself into a public issue law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. Likewise, in Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that public figures are those who either (1) occupy positions of such power and influence that they are public figures for all purposes, or (2) have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies” to influence outcomes law.cornell.edu. Thus, simply being newsworthy or tangentially involved in an issue does not make one a public figure; there must be either widespread fame or voluntary invocation of the public spotlight.

Matters of Public Interest/Concern. The term “public interest” or “public concern” applies not to persons but to topics. Courts look at whether the speech at issue relates to an issue “of public or general interest.” Generally, information about crime, politics, public health, or safety on public property (e.g., a helicopter rescue on a public highway) qualifies as a matter of public concern law.justia.com. Under First Amendment jurisprudence, speech on matters of public concern is given the highest protection. In the privacy context, the press has a privilege to publish newsworthy facts even when they touch on private lives, because the public has a “legitimate interest” in such events law.justia.com. In Shulman v. Group W Productions (Cal. 1998), for example, the California Supreme Court emphasized that information about an emergency rescue was newsworthy, and thus publication of the facts (though private in nature) was protected by the First Amendment law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, even a state law cannot punish a reporter for publishing truthful information (the identity of a rape victim) that was obtained from public court records supreme.justia.com. Similarly, in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Court recognized that a private telephone conversation about public-school labor negotiations was a “matter of public concern,” and accordingly the First Amendment shielded its disclosure even though the tape had been intercepted illegally by a third party supreme.justia.com.

In short, speech on matters of public concern is presumptively protected. Courts often hold that in defamation cases involving public concern, the plaintiff must bear additional burdens (see below). In privacy cases, the newsworthiness of the subject generally trumps privacy claims. The California Supreme Court has noted that the First Amendment “greatly circumscribes” the right of even a private person to recover damages for the publication of private facts when those facts involve public or legitimate newsworthy eventslaw.justia.com.

Defamation Law and the Actual Malice Standard

Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court set the rule for defamation involving public officials or figures. Sullivan held that the First Amendment forbids a public official from recovering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct unless he proves the statement was made with “actual malice” – i.e. knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth law.cornell.edu. That is, public officials (and by extension public figures) cannot recover for defamation unless the speaker acted with conscious falsity or a high degree of awareness that the statement was probably false law.cornell.edu. As the Court explained, this stringent standard is necessary so that critics will not be deterred from “free and open debate” even if they make some factual errors law.cornell.edu.

In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), the Court extended Sullivan’s actual‑malice rule to public figures in addition to public officials law.justia.com. The Court did not provide a single formula for public figures, but clarified that persons who thrust themselves into public controversies (or otherwise achieve wide renown) must likewise prove the speaker’s knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity. As Vegod (CA) summarized, Butts “held that public figures – like public officials – must prove actual malice to recover for defamation” law.justia.com.

By contrast, for private individuals the Court has allowed states some leeway. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Court refused to extend Sullivan’s standard to a lawyer who was a private person. Instead, it held that states may impose liability for defamation of private individuals (subject to at least negligence), so long as they do not impose strict liability supreme.justia.comsupreme.justia.com. The Court emphasized that private individuals are more vulnerable and deserve more protection; hence, it allowed recovery without proof of actual malice, provided the defendant was at least negligent about the truth supreme.justia.com. Gertz did insist, however, that a plaintiff who is a private figure suing a media defendant must prove the falsity of the statement to recover damages on matters of public interest, and that punitive damages still require a showing of actual malice supreme.justia.comlaw.cornell.edu.

The interplay between “public concern” and defamation burdens was further refined in Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985) and Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986). Hepps held that when a defamation claim involves speech on a matter of public concern, the private plaintiff must prove the statement’s falsity as part of his case, overriding the common-law presumption of falsitylaw.cornell.edu. And Dun & Bradstreet emphasized that Gertz’s restrictions on presumed and punitive damages apply only where the speech involves a public interest; in that case, selling credit reports was deemed not a matter of public concern, so the First Amendment did not compel the Gertz rulelaw.cornell.edu.

Actual Malice Defined. The Supreme Court has made clear that “actual malice” under Sullivan is a constitutional term of art. It means publishing with knowledge of falsity or “reckless disregard for the truth,” which is a high standard – much more than ordinary negligence law.cornell.edulaw.justia.com. Reckless disregard requires more than an ordinary failure to investigate; it requires a “high degree of awareness of probable falsity”law.cornell.edu (see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). The Court has rejected efforts to lower the standard in subsequent cases.

In California, defamation law parallels the federal framework in practice. For libel or slander actions by public figures, the plaintiff must show actual malice. Notably, California’s Civil Code §45a codifies this: it requires that a plaintiff prove “clear and convincing” evidence of actual malice in order to recover punitive damages against a media defendant. The Vegod decision (CA) explicitly adopted the Gertz definitions of public figure, and held that California grants no broader privilege to media than federal law law.justia.comlaw.justia.com.

Privacy and the Public Interest Defense

Privacy torts (such as intrusion upon seclusion or publication of private facts) intersect with public interest when the defendant claims the material was newsworthy. The First Amendment constrains liability for publishing truthful information about private individuals on matters of public interest. In Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn, the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law that punished a TV station for printing a rape victim’s name (obtained from public trial records), holding it unconstitutional to bar the press from reporting information in the public record supreme.justia.com. Similarly, Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) barred a civil suit against a newspaper that inadvertently published a victim’s name from a police report. These cases establish that where the subject matter is of public concern, privacy claims based on publication of true, lawfully obtained information generally fail.

In California, Shulman v. Group W Productions (1998) illustrates the balance between privacy and public interest. The court recognized a “fundamental legal problem” in drawing the line between “private” and “public and general interest” law.justia.com. In that case a helicopter rescue was videotaped and broadcast without consent. The California Supreme Court held that the rescue events were newsworthy and of legitimate public interest law.justia.com. Accordingly, the broadcast of those facts (public disclosure of private facts) was protected by the First Amendment, and summary judgment for the media was proper on the publication claim. However, the court also held that the intrusion itself – the act of filming the victims without consent – was not justified by newsworthiness and could be actionable law.justia.com. Thus, California recognizes that newsworthiness can defeat a privacy (publication) claim but does not automatically immunize invasive newsgathering methods. As the Shulman court noted, Cox Broadcasting and Florida Star together “greatly circumscribe” a private figure’s privacy rights in publication of private facts law.justia.com.

Additionally, courts have developed a “newsworthiness privilege” in privacy law. Under this doctrine, media defendants have a conditional privilege to publish true information of public interest. For example, California’s Civil Code § 1708.8 (the privacy law) does not explicitly create a constitutional defense, but California jurisprudence treats newsworthy material differently. If a lawful recording or observation captures matters of public concern, courts have declined to impose liability (e.g. People v. Buckley, 6 Cal.4th 289 (1993), immunizing reporters who overhear police radio dispatches; Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 522-25). As a leading treatise put it, “[t]he news media’s right to investigate and relate facts about the events and individuals of our time” may override an individual’s privacy interest when those facts are of legitimate public concern law.justia.com.

Criminal and Civil Enforcement

Criminal Defamation. Criminal defamation laws (libel/slander as crimes) have largely been curtailed by constitutional law. In Garrison v. Louisiana (1964), decided the same day as Sullivan, the Supreme Court invalidated a state criminal libel statute because it lacked an actual-malice requirement law.cornell.edu. Shortly thereafter, Ashton v. Kentucky (1966) struck down a vague criminal libel common-law definition. These decisions mean that speech which might give rise to criminal defamation must also satisfy First Amendment safeguards. In practice, criminal defamation prosecutions are rare, and courts have read Sullivan’s standards into any review of such statutes.

Civil Enforcement and Privileges. Civilly, defendants to defamation or privacy suits often invoke privileges grounded in public interest. The First Amendment itself is treated as a privilege for speech on public matters; if the plaintiff is a public figure, the Sullivan standard is essentially a constitutional privilege. In addition, many states have enacted statutory privileges (e.g. fair-report privilege) and notice statutes requiring corrections. California law specifically provides an absolute privilege for publication of judicial proceedings and certain official actions, and a qualified privilege for reporting “public proceedings” under Civil Code § 47. These reflect the same policy: transparency in matters of public concern. For example, the California Supreme Court has held that a newspaper’s publication of the details of a police investigation was privileged so long as the report was accurate and related to a public proceeding.

Furthermore, in California the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16) provides a procedural shield for statements made “in connection with an issue of public interest.” Thus, if speech is on a public-issue (broadly defined), a defamation suit can be struck unless the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing. In Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), for instance, the court held that a radio program’s mocking of a reality TV contestant was “in connection with an issue of public interest” (the show and the contestant’s conduct), and the insults were not actionable under anti-SLAPP law.justia.com.

Other Privacy and Speech Crimes. California and federal law also intersect on newsgathering crimes. Penal laws against eavesdropping or wiretapping (e.g. California Penal Code § 632) impose criminal sanctions on unauthorized recording of communications. But again, the newsworthiness of the communication can affect enforcement. In Bartnicki, the Supreme Court held that even though the interception was illegal, a third-party who lawfully obtained the tape was immune when the content was of public concern supreme.justia.com. Likewise, in People v. Buckley (1993), California’s high court refused to convict reporters who overheard police radio transmissions of private conversations, noting that imposing liability on the press would unduly infringe on the free flow of information about public safety.

California Law: Convergence and Divergence

California’s courts have largely adopted the federal approach but have also asserted independent state-law protections. On defamation, California Civil Code §§44–46 track the Sullivan/Gertz framework; notably, §45a requires actual malice for punitive damages against media. California has recognized that Gertz’s distinction between public and private figures is constitutionally grounded, and it uses that analysis for both libel and slander actions law.justia.comlaw.justia.com. Thus, a California state court will not allow punitive damages for defaming a private person unless actual malice is shown (per Civil Code § 45a and Gertz).

On privacy, California historically gave strong protection to privacy under its state constitution, but modern decisions like Shulman align more with federal free-speech values: truth and newsworthiness are powerful defenses. The California Constitution’s Speech Clause (Art. I, §2(a)) has been interpreted coextensively with the First Amendment in this area.

One notable California development is the explicit legislative anti-SLAPP framework, which requires early dismissal of suits that chill public participation. California courts have read “public interest” expansively under this statute, protecting even satirical commentary on entertainment events as matters of public debate law.justia.com. This is broader than any federal analogue. On the other hand, California civil law still allows private plaintiffs somewhat more recovery in some contexts. For example, California law (unlike federal) does not impose the Gertz requirement of proving falsity on private plaintiffs in all cases; although federal courts require falsehood be proven in public-concern cases law.cornell.edu, California law has not wholly abrogated the common-law presumption of falsity for private plaintiffs (though defendants can often force plaintiff to prove truth under California’s jury instructions and policy of free debate).

In sum, California defamation and privacy law generally track the federal standards for public figures and public issues, but California’s Constitution, statutes, and cases provide additional procedural mechanisms (like anti-SLAPP) and have carved out specific rules (e.g. punitive-damage thresholds) that strengthen First Amendment protections. Outside the speech context, California also recognizes intrusion upon seclusion as a privacy tort; unlike publication claims, intrusion claims often have no First Amendment privilege, as shown in Shulman. Thus, while California’s approach aligns with Sullivan/Gertz on the key question of public status and malice, it sometimes extends protections for free expression beyond federal law and sometimes imposes state-law duties (e.g. invasion of privacy claims) that must be analyzed under First Amendment constraints.

Constitutional Principles

The bedrock principle is that “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate,” and constitutional doctrine must tolerate some defamation to ensure robust public discourse law.cornell.edu. The First Amendment firmly places political and public-issue speech at the core of protected expression. Criticism of public officials and figures – even harsh or personally damaging criticism – is part of the “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate that the Amendment was designed to protect law.cornell.edu. Commenting on a person’s fitness for public office, or matters touching on public welfare, is virtually always protected speech; courts have rejected distinctions between public and private attributes when those attributes bear on fitness or honesty in office law.cornell.edu. Indeed, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), the Court underscored that public figures cannot claim injury to emotional privacy from a parody or satire unless they satisfy the actual-malice standard: “the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures… from recovering damages… without showing… that the publication contains a false statement of fact… made with actual malice”supreme.justia.com. This reflects the high premium given to debate on matters of public concern, even when that debate includes crude or offensive commentary.

In all these contexts, the key inquiry is whether the person or subject is sufficiently public and the speech sufficiently of public interest to warrant heightened protection. When it is, defamation and privacy claims face the actual malice hurdle and other constitutional limits (no liability without fault, proof of falsity, etc.). When it is not (private person and purely private matter), the state has more leeway. But in either case, courts must balance any reputational or privacy interest against the constitutional value of free expression. The Supreme Court and California courts have repeatedly emphasized that speech relating to public issues and public figures lies at the core of the First Amendment’s protection law.cornell.edulaw.justia.com.

Sources:

Key U.S. Supreme Court cases include New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964);Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975); Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001); and Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Cal. Const. art. I, §2 law.justia.com; Smith v. Daily Mail, 443 U.S. 97 (1979); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) thefire.org; Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) thefire.org; Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) thefire.org; Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

California Supreme Court authorities include Vegod Corp. v. ABC, 25 Cal.3d 763 (1979); Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200 (1998); and related anti-SLAPP jurisprudence such as Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 97 Cal.App.4th 798 (2002).

These cases define and illustrate the standards discussed above. All principles are grounded in the First Amendment’s free-speech protections as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment.

 in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979), the Court held that “state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards.” This so-called “Daily Mail principle” ensures the press, or others who post truthful information, cannot face punishment for publishing the names of rape victims and juvenile offenders, as well as other sensitive information obtained lawfully. “Lawfully obtained” means the publisher obtained the information from, for example, a public record or material in the public domain, rather than intercepting the material illegally.

The First Amendment also protects publication of truthful information received from a human source. As the Supreme Court explained in Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), it doesn’t matter if the source obtained the material unlawfully, as long as the publisher did not participate in the illegal action and merely received the information from the source.

First Amendment protects much offensive, obnoxious, and even repugnant speech. Justice William Brennan famously referred to this as “the bedrock principle” of the first freedom in the flag-burning case Texas v. Johnson (1989). Current Chief Justice John Roberts expressed this principle poignantly in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), stating that even the inflammatory rhetoric of the Westboro Baptist Church — known for picketing military funerals with signs that read “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” — was protected:

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

First Amendment principles, a concept from the celebrated libel law decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): Namely, the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

“Thinking Outside the Dox: The First Amendment and the Right to Disclose Personal Information” that “[h]arassment and threat laws already exist to penalize people who cross the line from disclosing information to actually acting on the information” and engaging in unprotected conduct such as stalking.  

If the poster falls into one of the other existing narrow categories of unprotected speech, it is also not protected. For example, if a poster utters a true threat then he beomces a doxxer and thus is not protected by the First Amendment. Likewise, if a poster or bloogger incites imminent lawless action — intentionally provoking others to engage in immediate unlawful action — then he beomces a doxxer and thus is not protected by the First Amendment.  True Threat Test Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

 

The Value of Telling the Truth – Speaking Upright

I. CORE RULE: PROTECTED SPEECH ≠ “COURSE OF CONDUCT”

Section 527.6 defines “harassment” as a “course of conduct” that seriously alarms/annoys and serves no legitimate purpose, but it expressly states: “Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct.’” (CCP § 527.6(b)(1).) The same carve-out appears in the stalking statute. (Pen. Code § 646.9(k).) If the petition relies on Zullo’s non-threatening flyers/posts about public issues, the petition fails as a matter of law.

II. NO “TRUE THREATS,” NO INJUNCTION

A speech-based restraining order requires more than repeated criticism. The First Amendment prohibits punishment of speech unless it is a true threat or otherwise unprotected; after Counterman, the speaker must have at least recklessly disregarded the threatening nature of the communication. (600 U.S. at 73–82.) Nothing in petitioner’s declarations meets that standard.

III. PRIOR RESTRAINT: PRETRIAL SPEECH GAGS ARE INVALID

Broad bans on speech before any adjudication of falsity or illegality are unconstitutional prior restraints. (Evans, 162 Cal.App.4th at 1169–1173.) Only narrow, post-trial injunctive relief limited to statements adjudicated false may issue. (Balboa Island, 40 Cal.4th at 1156–1161.)

IV. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200) / Secondary-Evidence Rule (Evid. Code § 1521): If the content of a writing (including digital posts; Evid. Code § 250) is offered for its truth, petitioner must lay the foundation or present the original/credible secondary evidence; partial, illegible images lacking context should be excluded or given no weight.

 

V. OPTIONAL NARROW RELIEF (ONLY IF THE COURT FINDS MISCONDUCT)

If the Court believes some conduct (not speech) crossed a line (e.g., trespass, targeted residential picketing), any order must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored time/place/manner relief. (Frisby v. Schultz (1988) 487 U.S. 474; McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464.) A broad ban on speaking, posting, or distributing literature would be unconstitutional.

 

Quick cite list (tables/points)

  • Anti-SLAPP scope & mechanics: Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53; Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376; FilmOn.com (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133; Bonni (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995.

  • Fees: CCP § 425.16(c)(1); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122.

  • First Amendment protection: Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443; Counterman v. Colorado (2023) 600 U.S. 66; Milkovich (1990) 497 U.S. 1; Hepps (1986) 475 U.S. 767; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254.

  • Prior restraint: Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157; Balboa Island (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1141.

  • Harassment carve-out: CCP § 527.6(b)(1); Pen. Code § 646.9(k).

  • Aiding/Conspiracy limits: Applied Equipment (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503.

  • Authentication: Evid. Code §§ 1401, 403, 250, 1521; People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1429; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258.

  • Statute: Penal Code §653m(a)–(e) (text incl. good-faith and return-call provisions). California.Public.Law

  • Constitutionality & scope: People v. Hernandez, 231 Cal.App.3d 1376 (1991) (upholding (a) & (b), emphasizing narrow focus on intentional harassment). Justia

  • Return-call pleading: People v. Lampasona, 71 Cal.App.3d 884 (1977) (old gap later addressed by §653m(d)). Justia

  • First Amendment “true threats”: Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). Justia Law+1

  • Public-concern/petitioning: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982). Justia Law+1

  • Demurrer standard: Penal Code §1004; see order explaining face-of-pleading rule. closeupsblog.com

First Amendment

ITS IS OUR FIRM OPINION that We believe

Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Counterman v. Colorado – Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment

Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

Watts v. United States True Threat decision – 1st Amendment

True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – 1st Amendment

 

Anti-SLAPP Law Cases – Case Law Summaries & Citings

How Anti-SLAPP Laws Protect Your Right to Free Speech

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

California Supreme Court Confirms that the “anti-SLAPP” Statute Applies to Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation

 

Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Free Speech, the First Amendment, and Social Media

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16 California’s Anti-SLAPP Law

Life is Chess!, or…. Is Chess Life?

The Eagle and The Crow – The Ignorant Crow vs The Ascending Eagle

Lawyers are not that special, a high IQ is not needed a mere 100-130 can become this shithole career, they come in at average IQ of 100 all the way to 130 Moderately gifted and that would be a top tier lawyer., but the most successful people on the planet HAVE NO DEGREE FROM A COLLEGE, yet high IQs with fast learning minds. The high aptitude of an inttellect wwith an IQ score of 168, like the authors is considered exceptionally high and falls within the “exceptionally gifted”

An IQ score of 168 is considered exceptionally high, indicating a very high level of cognitive ability
  • An IQ of 168 places an individual in the top 0.03% of the population, according to Wikipedia.
  • It signifies intelligence greater than 99.9% of humanity, notes Quora.

 

Terms of Service

Site Policy & Notices & Privacy Policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]> How Anti-SLAPP Laws Protect Your Right to Free Speech https://goodshepherdmedia.net/how-anti-slapp-laws-protect-your-right-to-free-speech/ Tue, 19 Aug 2025 05:23:09 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=19677 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fort-Minor-Remember-the-Name.mp3

 

How Anti-SLAPP Laws Protect Your Right to Free Speech

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. We are free to speak out on issues we care about without fear that the government will stop us or punish us.

But it can be risky to criticize public figures. Powerful people often have the financial resources to respond to criticism with a lawsuit.

This type of lawsuit is called a SLAPP, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The goal of a SLAPP is to get a person to retract their criticism of the person or business. But there are now a growing number of anti-SLAPP laws designed to protect speakers from the threat of going to court to defend their First Amendment right to free speech.

What are anti-SLAPP laws?

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect free speech from being threatened or shut down by people on the receiving end of critical speech. They are designed to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.

What are SLAPP lawsuits?

University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George Pring created the term SLAPP in the 1980s to refer to a lawsuit whose primary purpose is harassment and intimidation.

The goal is to force someone to take back a critical statement – or not make it in the first place – or else face an expensive lawsuit.

Both the financial and emotional toll are often greater for the defendant than the plaintiff, the person bringing the suit. Most SLAPP suits are filed by powerful people or corporations to protect their reputations against criticism from average people. They are often well-resourced and able to rely on their legal teams to do all the work. Defendants have less money to pay lawyers and must actively participate in their own defense.

How do SLAPP lawsuits affect people’s free expression?

To end or prevent a SLAPP, people will frequently agree to apologize and change their statements and promise not to speak out in the future. This sends a clear message to others who might speak critically as well. The result is the chilling of free speech and healthy debate about important matters of public concern.

Most SLAPP suits are based on claims of defamation or damaging someone’s reputation. But they can also claim a breach of contract, civil rights violations, interfering with the right to do business, or copyright or trademark infringement. They range from complex lawsuits filed in federal court to individual disputes over purely local matters.

How do anti-SLAPP laws protect free expression?

An anti-SLAPP law is designed to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.

Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws. But despite repeated attempts, Congress has never passed a federal anti-SLAPP law. People in 17 states, and many people who are sued in federal court, lack protection from SLAPP suits.

Anti-SLAPP laws make it easier for someone who has been sued for exercising their First Amendment rights to get a SLAPP lawsuit dismissed quickly.

More important, anti-SLAPP laws deter people from trying to use lawsuits to silence others. While anti-SLAPP laws vary from state to state, all offer one or more of the following protections:

1. They protect a wide range of First Amendment activities.

Anti-SLAPP laws require that the person being sued show that the lawsuit is targeting their First Amendment rights. Some only apply to statements made in an official government proceeding, like allegations made during a public-school board meeting or in front of the city council. Others apply to any speech on a matter of public concern, no matter where, when or how it occurs. These strong anti-SLAPP laws will also give the speaker the benefit of the doubt that the speech is about a matter of public concern.

2. They put the burden on the person suing.

In most lawsuits, the person being sued can only get the case dismissed in its early stages if they can clearly show they will win; if not, the case can potentially continue for months or even years at great expense.

Anti-SLAPP laws recognize the importance of free speech by putting the burden on the person who is suing to demonstrate why the lawsuit needs to happen. Once the person being sued shows the lawsuit is challenging his or her free speech rights, an anti-SLAPP law requires the person bringing the lawsuit to demonstrate they are likely to win the case. If they cannot do so, the case will be dismissed.

3. They accelerate a final decision.

An initial step in most lawsuits is a long and expensive process where each side collects information from the other in advance of trial. There are often several pre-trial hearings on legal issues. Anti-SLAPP laws pause these time-consuming steps until the court decides who should win.

4. They allow immediate appeal of the initial decision.

Most court cases require that the entire process plays out before the losing party can appeal. Anti-SLAPP laws often say that a defendant can immediately appeal a decision, saving significant time and money.

5. They award attorney fees and court costs to a winning defendant.

The U.S. legal system doesn’t require that a person who unsuccessfully files a lawsuit pay the legal fees and costs of the person they sued. This means successfully defending yourself in a lawsuit is often a hollow victory. Yes, you won but you also had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to win. An anti-SLAPP law says that if the person suing to stop the speech loses, then they must pay the legal fees and court costs of the person being sued.

What are some examples of SLAPP lawsuits?

Some of the biggest First Amendment cases in our history meet the definition of a SLAPP:

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) is considered the most important protector of press freedom. It set the high standard that a public figure filing a defamation lawsuit must show that an allegation made about them was false and that the speaker who made the mistake knew or should have known it was wrong. This standard makes it possible to challenge and criticize powerful people. The lawsuit involved a paid political advertisement in The New York Times designed to raise money for the civil rights movement by criticizing law enforcement response to civil rights protests. It was filed by L.B. Sullivan, Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner, even though he wasn’t named in the advertisement. Sullivan said that certain facts in the article were incorrect; the paper countered that they were minor mistakes and didn’t matter in terms of the public’s overall view of the treatment of civil rights protesters by southern law enforcement. The lawsuit was filed in Alabama where a jury would be more sympathetic to Sullivan than to the northern newspaper. The jury awarded Sullivan $500,000 to send a message to civil rights activists. But the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the verdict and protected the newspaper.
  • NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) also had roots in the civil rights movement. In 1966, a local branch of the NAACP organized a boycott against white merchants who discriminated against Black people in Mississippi. The business owners sued the NAACP. Most protesters’ actions were protected by the First Amendment, but a few people took unprotected actions like threatening store owners. A Mississippi court ruled for the business owners, ordering the NAACP to pay $3.5 million in damages. It took 16 years before the Supreme Court overturned that verdict, saying “the boycott clearly involved constitutionally protected activity” designed “to bring about political, social, and economic change.”

Most SLAPP suits involve everyday speech by average people:

  • In 2003, the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition picketed several buildings in New York where tenants lived in terrible conditions. Instead of fixing the problem, building owners sued the NWBCCC for trespass, libel and wrongful interference with business relationships. The court cases went on for several years. They were eventually dismissed but cost NWBCCC more than $1 million in legal fees and forced the organization to focus on defending the lawsuit rather than advocacy efforts.
  • In 2010, college student Justin Kurtz’s car was towed from his apartment complex. He started a Facebook group called “Kalamazoo Residents against T&J Towing,” which criticized the towing company’s aggressive practices. T&J Towing filed a lawsuit seeking $750,000 in damages from Kurtz for alleged defamation. The lawsuit lasted eight months before Kurtz and the company decided to resolve their case on their own, out of court. Kurtz was not reimbursed for his legal fees but did exact some measure of revenge: the case went viral with The New York Times eventually publishing a front-page article and the Facebook group grew to 14,000 members.
  • In 2010, the Washington City Paper, a free weekly newspaper, published an article that catalogued many alleged wrongdoings by Dan Snyder, the then-owner of Washington, D.C.’s professional football team. He was not amused and filed a defamation lawsuit. Snyder’s lawyers warned the corporate owners of the City Paper that “the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value” of the newspaper. This letter, in effect, said it would be easier for the City Paper to apologize and go away than stand by its story. The paper did just that, and Snyder eventually dropped the lawsuit.
  • In 2019, then-Congressman Devin Nunes filed – and lost – a lawsuit against Twitter and the creators of two parody accounts “Devin Nunes’ Cow” (a mocking reference to his family farm) and “Devin Nunes’ Mom.” Nunes lived in California but filed his lawsuit in Virginia, where there aren’t anti-SLAPP laws. He demanded $250 million. He lost but has filed several different lawsuits since 2018 seeking more than $900 million from those he believes has wronged him. To date, he has not won any of them.

What are some examples of anti-SLAPP laws that protected free speech?

Anti-SLAPP laws have successfully protected speakers in a variety of cases throughout the country:

  • In 2003, a Baltimore developer tried to sue future tenants for $25 million after the tenants criticized changes to building plans. The lawsuit was dismissed under the Maryland anti-SLAPP law.
  • In 2015, Robert and Michele Duchouquette posted an unfavorable review of Pets for Care on Yelp. The pet-sitting company sued for defamation and for violation of a clause in their service contracts that says clients cannot make negative comments about them. Pets for Care sought up to $1 million and removal of the negative review. Using the Texas anti-SLAPP law, the Duchouquettes got the lawsuit dismissed. They were reimbursed for more than $23,000 in legal fees and other costs.
  • In 2017, Phoenix business owner Charlie Lai criticized commercial property owner True North’s remodeling plans. True North tried to sue. Lai used the Arizona anti-SLAPP law to get the lawsuit dismissed, and the court ordered True North to pay his attorney fees.

Anti-SLAPP laws and the First Amendment

While the First Amendment provides strong legal protection for a free press and for our rights as individuals to speak, assemble and petition the government, when a lawsuit challenges these freedoms, it can get costly. Anti-SLAPP laws serve as a great equalizer. They protect those who might otherwise have to self-censor in the face of legal threats. They allow us to speak out on matters that affect our everyday lives. source

 

 

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

]]> Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article https://goodshepherdmedia.net/court-tosses-disbarred-lawyers-suit-over-newspaper-article/ Mon, 18 Aug 2025 06:43:41 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=19602 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fort-Minor-Remember-the-Name.mp3

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article on his ethics case with a ‘crime’ header

An appeals court in California has tossed a suit filed against the San Francisco Chronicle by a now-disbarred lawyer who claimed the newspaper defamed him partly by putting a “crime” header caption on a story about his ethics case.

The lawyer, Wade Robertson, also said the September 2013 article defamed him by reporting he had “cheated” an elderly client out of $3.5 million and he had been suspended from law practice.

The San Francisco Chronicle article had reported on a disbarment recommendation stemming from Robertson’s partnership with a 77-year-old Maryland resident who contributed $3.5 million to finance a class action lawsuit in return for a cut of the proceeds. Robertson had used the money for personal investments and failed to disclose that the class action was dismissed, a state bar court had found.

The California Court of Appeal, First District, said in a June 26 unpublished opinion that the article was an accurate report on an official proceeding by the state bar court. The “crime” header, when read in conjunction with the entire article, does not accuse Robertson of any crime, the appeals court said.

In addition, the appeals court said, the state bar court had concluded that Robertson had committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in “a deviously orchestrated plan to defraud” the Maryland man. The San Francisco Chronicle accurately summarized the findings, the appeals court said. And its report that Robertson was suspended pending an appeal was “entirely accurate,” the appeals court said, though the actual term for his suspension was a transfer to “involuntary inactive status.”

The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit based on California’s anti-SLAPP law, which authorizes a motion to dismiss a suit arising from the right to free speech in connection with a public issue. “From time to time, this court has encountered difficult cases concerning the scope and application of the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute,” the opinion began. “This case is not one of them.”

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

]]> Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16 California’s Anti-SLAPP Law https://goodshepherdmedia.net/code-of-civil-procedure-section-425-16-californias-anti-slapp-law/ Fri, 15 Aug 2025 03:48:27 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=19665

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16 California’s Anti-SLAPP Law

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.

(b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.

(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5. (2) A defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike in an action subject to paragraph (1) shall not be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs if that cause of action is brought pursuant to Section 6259, 11130, 11130.3, 54960, or 54960.1 of the Government Code. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent a prevailing defendant from recovering attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 6259, 11130.5, or 54690.5.

(d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.

(e) As used in this section, “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue” includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

(f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.

(g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.

(h) For purposes of this section, “complaint” includes “cross-complaint” and “petition,” “plaintiff” includes “cross-complainant” and “petitioner,” and “defendant” includes “cross-defendant” and “respondent.”

(i) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable under Section 904.1.

(j) (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees. (2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other appropriate electronic media.

History of statute:

1992 — Senate Bill 264 (Lockyer). For a list of organizations and newspapers that supported enactment of the original statute, see Supporters of 1992 Anti-SLAPP Bill.

1993 — The statute was amended to require award of costs and attorney fees to the plaintiff if the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

1997 — Senate Bill 1296 (Lockyer). The statute was amended in light of appellate court opinions that had narrowly construed application of the statute to disputes involving matters of “public interest”. In amending the statute, the Legislature clarified its intent that any conduct in furtherance of the rights of petition or free speech is protected under the anti-SLAPP law.

1999 — Assembly Bill 1675 (Assembly Judiciary Committee). Under the original statute, a defendant whose special motion to strike a complaint was denied could challenge the denial only through a petition for a writ in the Court of Appeal. Writs are discretionary, disfavored, and rarely successful. If, however, a plaintiff’s complaint were dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike, the plaintiff was able to appeal the dismissal immediately. Thus, the statute was amended to give the SLAPP target — the person whom the anti-SLAPP law was designed to protect — the same ability as the filer of the SLAPP to challenge an adverse trial court decision. See also Supporters of AB 1675.

2005 — Assembly Bill 1158 (Lieber). The statute was amended to overrule the decision by the California Supreme Court in Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, which held that the trial court’s erroneous denial of an anti-SLAPP motion constitutes probable cause for filing and maintaining a SLAPP, as well as the decisions in Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc.(2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, and Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Rights Coalition, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, which held that the 30-day period in which to schedule a hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion is jurisdictional.

2009 — The statute was amended to add section 425.16(c)(2), which provides that a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion may not be awarded fees on claims of violation of the public records act or open meetings law. source

The Evidentiary Standard under the anti-SLAPP Statute (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16): Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019)

Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (the “Anti-SLAPP statute”) was first enacted in 1991. Notwithstanding the statute’s relatively long history, California case law has focused almost entirely on the first prong addressing the application of the statute, i.e., whether the claim arises out of petitioning or other protected activity. In fact, it was not until February 2019 that the California Supreme Court issued its first decision addressing the necessary evidentiary showing under the second prong, i.e., whether a plaintiff had established a probability of prevailing on the claim. See Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 940.

In Sweetwater, the California Supreme Court held that in order to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim, courts require that the evidence relied on by the plaintiff must be admissible at trial. Id. at 946-48. Unless the evidence referred to is admissible, or at least not objected to, there is nothing for the trier of fact to credit. An assessment of the probability of prevailing on the claim looks to trial, and the evidence that will be presented at that time. Therefore, it follows that such evidence must be admissible. Id. The court, without resolving evidentiary conflicts, must determine whether the plaintiff’s showing, if accepted by the trier of fact, would be sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment at trial. Id. at 947.

Since Sweetwater, there has been scant case law addressing this evidentiary standard. In fact, it took almost a full year, until February 19, 2020, for the issuance of an appellate decision which provided an interpretation of Sweetwater, i.e., Kinsella v. Kinsella (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 442. In Kinsella, the Court of Appeal addressed a cause of action for malicious prosecution based upon the filing of a prior civil action. The appellate court held that on a claim for malicious prosecution, the Plaintiff’s opposition to an anti-SLAPP motion must demonstrate the claim is “supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is credited.” Id. at 450-53.

In reaching its conclusion, again relying upon Sweetwater, the Court of Appeal was clear that under prong two of the anti-SLAPP analysis, the applicable standard is whether “plaintiff presented evidence of a prima facie case of the elements of the cause of action” (e.g., malicious prosecution). Id. at 463, fn.16) (emphasis in original). If a plaintiff has made the necessary showing, the court then evaluates the defendant’s showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law. Id. at 453.
The attorneys at Berman, Berman, Berman, Schneider & Lowary LLP can address any questions you have regarding the above, and they are uniquely qualified to provide additional insight and guidance. source

California anti-SLAPP Statute

California has a strong anti-SLAPP law. To challenge a SLAPP suit in California, defendants must show that they are being sued for “any act . . . in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019). Under the statute, the rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue include four categories of activities: statements made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by a governmental body; statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; and any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or petition rights in connection with “a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 425.16(e).

California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest. Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81, 89–90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Under this standard, statements that report or comment on controversial political, economic, and social issues, from the local to the international level, would certainly qualify. Conversely, a California court has held that statements about a person who was not in the public eye did not relate to an issue of public interest. Dyer v. Childress, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).

The California anti-SLAPP law allows a defendant to file a motion to strike the complaint, which the court will hear within 30 days unless the docket is overbooked. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(f). Discovery activities are placed on hold from the time the motion is filed until the court has ruled on it, although the judge may permit “specified discovery” if the requesting party provides notice of its request to the other side and can show good cause for it. § 425.16(g).

In ruling on the motion to strike, a California court will first determine whether the defendant established that the lawsuit arose from one of the statutorily defined protected speech or petition activities. Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). If that is the case, the judge will grant the motion unless the plaintiff can show a probability that he will prevail on the claim. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). In making this determination, the court will consider the plaintiff’s complaint, the SLAPP defendant’s motion to strike, and any sworn statements containing facts on which the assertions in those documents are based. § 425.16(b)(2).

If the court grants the motion to strike, it must impose attorney’s fees and costs on the plaintiff, except when the basis for the lawsuit stemmed from California’s public records or open meetings laws. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1)-(2). These laws provide separate provisions for recovering attorney’s fees and costs.

The California anti-SLAPP law also gives a successful defendant who can show that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit to harass or silence the speaker the ability to file a so-called “SLAPPback” lawsuit against his or her opponent. § 425.18. Under this remedy, a SLAPP defendant who won a motion to strike may sue the plaintiff who filed the SLAPP suit to recover damages for abuse of the legal process. Conversely, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs if the court finds that the motion to strike was frivolous or brought solely to delay the proceedings. § 425.16(c)(1).

Either party is entitled to immediately appeal the court’s decision on the motion to strike. § 425.16(i). source

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

]]> Anti-SLAPP Law in California https://goodshepherdmedia.net/anti-slapp-law-in-california/ Fri, 08 Aug 2025 08:01:01 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=5933 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fort-Minor-Remember-the-Name.mp3

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

1st Amendment Freedom of Press & Speech

What is Anti-SLAPP?

Short for strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs have become an all-too-common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings.

Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.

Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, the person sued makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail in the suit — meaning they must show that they have evidence that could result in a favorable verdict. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden and the suit is dismissed through anti-SLAPP proceedings, many statutes allow defendants to collect attorney’s fees from the plaintiff.

Resources

Anti-SLAPP Stories

State-by-State Resources

View the Reporters Committee’s Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide.

Recent Anti-SLAPP Updates

2019-06-03: Colorado became 31st state with anti-SLAPP protections

2019-06-02: Texas modified its existing anti-SLAPP law

2019-04-23: The Tennessee legislature amended an anti-SLAPP statute that significantly strengthens the state’s anti-SLAPP protections. Effective July 1, 2019, the new Tennessee Public Participation Act allows defendants to file a motion to dismiss a SLAPP suit before the costly discovery process begins, appeal the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, and recover attorney’s fees if a court rules in their favor. The new law is largely based on Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute. cited https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/

 

 

 

Cases Involving the California Anti-SLAPP Law

Lawsuits seeking to curtail the exercise of the First Amendment can take a multitude of forms. The cases on the following pages generally involve a special motion to strike a complaint and/or motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the California anti-SLAPP law, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

CA Statutes

The California anti-SLAPP law was enacted by the state Legislature almost twenty years ago to protect the petition and free speech rights of all Californians. Amendments have been made since that time to improve the law and provide stronger protection from meritless lawsuits to anyone who is SLAPPed in California.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 Statements before a government body or official proceeding; or in connection with issue under consideration by government body; or in a place open to the public or public forum in connection with issue of public interest; or any other conduct in furtherance of petition/free speech in connection with issue of public interest, are protected. California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides for a special motion to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from activity exercising the rights of petition and free speech. The statute was first enacted in 1992.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 Exempts from the anti-SLAPP law public interest litigation and claims arising from commercial speech. This statute was enacted to correct abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). It prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to (1) public interest litigation when certain conditions are met, and (2) certain actions against a business that arise from commercial statements or conduct of the business.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.18
SLAPPbacks:  Prohibits the use of certain provisions of the anti-SLAPP law against a SLAPPback brought in the form of a malicious prosecution claim. This statute was enacted primarily to facilitate the recovery by SLAPP victims of their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed. It provides that the prevailing defendant attorney fee and immediate appeal provisions of the anti-SLAPP law do not apply to SLAPPbacks, and that an anti-SLAPP motion may not be filed against a SLAPPback by a party whose filing or maintenance of the prior cause of action from which the SLAPPback arises was illegal as a matter of law.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 1987.2

These statutes set forth a procedure for challenging subpoenas. The 2008 amendment to section 1987.1 allows any person to challenge subpoenas for “personally identifying information” sought in connection with an underlying lawsuit involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights. This amendment also added section 1987.2(b), which provides that such a person who successfully challenges such a subpoena arising from a lawsuit filed in another state based on exercise of free speech rights on the Internet is entitled to recover his or her attorney fees.

Civil Code section 47

Defines privileged publication or broadcast and immunizes participants in official proceedings or litigation against all tort actions except malicious prosecution. This statute figures prominently in many cases. Check back soon for links to some cases arising from this law.

The California Anti-Libel Tourism Act

SB 320 passed both chambers of the CA legislature and was approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on 10/11/09.  The bill prohibits recognition of foreign defamation judgments if a California court determines that the defamation law applied by a foreign court does not provide at least as much protection for freedom of speech and the press as provided by both the United States and California Constitutions.

U.S. Federal Statutes

Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), U.S. Code 47 section 230

Grants interactive online services of all types, including news websites, blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from certain types of legal liability stemming from content created by others

Bottom Line:

  • Courts consistently protect speech that is disturbing, rude, mean, or cruel, as long as it’s not false.

  • Anti-SLAPP laws in California and elsewhere make it easier to dismiss lawsuits that try to punish this kind of harsh commentary.

  • The more the subject involves public interest, the stronger the protection.

 Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide

Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits — known as SLAPPs or strategic lawsuits against public participation — filed against them for exercising speech, press, assembly, petition, or association rights. These laws aim to discourage the filing of SLAPP suits and prevent them from imposing significant litigation costs and chilling protected speech.

In recent years, several states have adopted or amended their anti-SLAPP laws. As of January 2025, 35 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Anti-SLAPP protections vary significantly from state to state. For example, in some states, like Massachusetts, they only protect defendants from cases brought in retaliation for petitioning the government. In others, such as California, the laws broadly protect speech made in connection with a public issue. For the most part, anti-SLAPP laws are broad enough to cover SLAPP suits aimed at silencing or retaliating against journalists or news outlets for critical reporting. These laws typically provide critical protections to the news media—allowing defendants to secure a quick dismissal before the costly discovery process begins, permitting defendants who win their anti-SLAPP motions to recover attorney’s fees and costs, automatically staying discovery once the defendant has filed an anti-SLAPP motion, and allowing defendants to immediately appeal a trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.

This anti-SLAPP legal guide provides a general introduction to each state’s anti-SLAPP law, to the extent one exists. It does not replace the legal advice of an attorney in one’s own state when confronted with a specific legal problem. Journalists who have additional questions or need assistance finding a lawyer with experience litigating these types of claims can contact the Reporters Committee’s hotline.

Special thanks to Laura Prather, a partner at Haynes and Boone, for her assistance with the original version of this guide, and Austin Vining, a law student and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Florida, class of 2021, for his assistance in updating this guide. source

California has a strong anti-SLAPP law.

California has a strong anti-SLAPP law. To challenge a SLAPP suit in California, defendants must show that they are being sued for “any act . . . in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019). Under the statute, the rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue include four categories of activities: statements made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by a governmental body; statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; and any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or petition rights in connection with “a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 425.16(e).

California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest. Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81, 89–90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Under this standard, statements that report or comment on controversial political, economic, and social issues, from the local to the international level, would certainly qualify. Conversely, a California court has held that statements about a person who was not in the public eye did not relate to an issue of public interest. Dyer v. Childress, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).

The California anti-SLAPP law allows a defendant to file a motion to strike the complaint, which the court will hear within 30 days unless the docket is overbooked. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(f). Discovery activities are placed on hold from the time the motion is filed until the court has ruled on it, although the judge may permit “specified discovery” if the requesting party provides notice of its request to the other side and can show good cause for it. § 425.16(g).

In ruling on the motion to strike, a California court will first determine whether the defendant established that the lawsuit arose from one of the statutorily defined protected speech or petition activities. Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). If that is the case, the judge will grant the motion unless the plaintiff can show a probability that he will prevail on the claim. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). In making this determination, the court will consider the plaintiff’s complaint, the SLAPP defendant’s motion to strike, and any sworn statements containing facts on which the assertions in those documents are based. § 425.16(b)(2).

If the court grants the motion to strike, it must impose attorney’s fees and costs on the plaintiff, except when the basis for the lawsuit stemmed from California’s public records or open meetings laws. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1)-(2). These laws provide separate provisions for recovering attorney’s fees and costs.

The California anti-SLAPP law also gives a successful defendant who can show that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit to harass or silence the speaker the ability to file a so-called “SLAPPback” lawsuit against his or her opponent. § 425.18. Under this remedy, a SLAPP defendant who won a motion to strike may sue the plaintiff who filed the SLAPP suit to recover damages for abuse of the legal process. Conversely, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs if the court finds that the motion to strike was frivolous or brought solely to delay the proceedings. § 425.16(c)(1).

Either party is entitled to immediately appeal the court’s decision on the motion to strike. § 425.16(i).

To learn more, read San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow’s “decision-tree,” depicting  how anti-SLAPP motions are processed in California. find your state here all 50 included!

 

learn more about Anti-SLAPP:

California Supreme Court Confirms that the “anti-SLAPP” Statute Applies to Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation 

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully

California has an excellent anti-SLAPP law. It was enacted in 2009.

Frankly, the procedural requirements of section 425.16, its interaction with other statutes such as Civil Code 47 (the statute defining what is privileged speech), and the latest definition of “public interest,” which changes regularly, is often far too challenging for a trial court judge to decipher in the limited time he or she has to consider an anti-SLAPP motion.

A bad decision by the judge can be devastating to the defendant or plaintiff. If the special motion to strike is denied when it should have been granted, then the defendant remains hostage to the action.  In an effort to minimize this possibility, the statute provides that the order denying the motion is immediately appealable, but that is costly and time-consuming, which is what the anti-SLAPP statute was trying to prevent in the first place. Conversely, improperly (or properly) granting an anti-SLAPP motion will entitle the defendant to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney fees. This has turned into a significant problem because there are many unethical attorneys who submit inflated fee applications following a successful anti-SLAPP motion. I am frequently retained to testify as an expert to challenge these inflated bills, and thus far I have always been successful in having them reduced, but without such testimony far too many judges are rubber-stamping attorney fee motions, which I have seen exceed $400,000. And there are no “take-backs” when it comes to SLAPP suits. Once an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, a plaintiff cannot escape this mandatory fee award by amending or even dismissing his complaint.

Any of the following types of actions (and perhaps more because the law is expanding) can be a SLAPP suit:

  • Defamation
  • Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process
  • Nuisance
  • Invasion of Privacy
  • Conspiracy
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Interference with Contract or Economic Advantage

As you can see, many actions can result in an anti-SLAPP motion, and such a motion can be a costly and inequitable minefield if the judge fails to fully understand the law. If you are going to enter that minefield, you need an attorney who is a recognized expert in this field. You need Morris & Stone, attorneys whose primary area of practice is defamation (slander and libel) and the accompanying SLAPP laws.

1In state courts, claims may not be amended if an anti-SLAPP motion is pending or has been granted.  In federal courts, leave to amend may be granted.

Statements before a government body or official proceeding; or in connection with issue under consideration by government body; or in a place open to the public or public forum in connection with issue of public interest; or any other conduct in furtherance of petition/free speech in connection with issue of public interest, are protected.

CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.17.

Exempts from the anti-SLAPP law public interest litigation and claims arising from commercial speech.

CIV. PROC. CODE §425.18

SLAPPbacks:  Prohibits the use of certain provisions of the anti-SLAPP law against a SLAPPback brought in the form of a malicious prosecution claim.

The California Anti-Libel Tourism Act

SB 320 passed both chambers of the CA legislature and was approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on 10/11/09.  The bill prohibits recognition of foreign defamation judgments if a California court determines that the defamation law applied by a foreign court does not provide at least as much protection for freedom of speech and the press as provided by both the United States and California Constitutions. source

 

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

SOME GOOD 1ST AMENDMEND ANTI SLAPP LAW FOR YOU SISSY’S:

California’s Anti-SLAPP Law and Related State and Federal Statutes

CA Statutes

The California anti-SLAPP law was enacted by the state Legislature almost twenty years ago to protect the petition and free speech rights of all Californians. Amendments have been made since that time to improve the law and provide stronger protection from meritless lawsuits to anyone who is SLAPPed in California.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16

California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides for a special motion to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from activity exercising the rights of petition and free speech. The statute was first enacted in 1992.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17

This statute was enacted to correct abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). It prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to (1) public interest litigation when certain conditions are met, and (2) certain actions against a business that arise from commercial statements or conduct of the business.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.18

This statute was enacted primarily to facilitate the recovery by SLAPP victims of their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed. It provides that the prevailing defendant attorney fee and immediate appeal provisions of the anti-SLAPP law do not apply to SLAPPbacks, and that an anti-SLAPP motion may not be filed against a SLAPPback by a party whose filing or maintenance of the prior cause of action from which the SLAPPback arises was illegal as a matter of law.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 1987.2

These statutes set forth a procedure for challenging subpoenas. The 2008 amendment to section 1987.1 allows any person to challenge subpoenas for “personally identifying information” sought in connection with an underlying lawsuit involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights. This amendment also added section 1987.2(b), which provides that such a person who successfully challenges such a subpoena arising from a lawsuit filed in another state based on exercise of free speech rights on the Internet is entitled to recover his or her attorney fees.

Civil Code section 47

Defines privileged publication or broadcast and immunizes participants in official proceedings or litigation against all tort actions except malicious prosecution. This statute figures prominently in many cases. Check back soon for links to some cases arising from this law.

U.S. Federal Statutes

Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), U.S. Code 47 section 230

Grants interactive online services of all types, including news websites, blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from certain types of legal liability stemming from content created by others. source

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16 California’s Anti-SLAPP Law

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 425.16.

  • (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.
  • (b)
    • (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.
    • (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.
    • (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.
  • (c)
    • (1) Except as provided in paragraph
    • (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5. (2) A defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike in an action subject to paragraph (1) shall not be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs if that cause of action is brought pursuant to Section 6259, 11130, 11130.3, 54960, or 54960.1 of the Government Code. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent a prevailing defendant from recovering attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 6259, 11130.5, or 54690.5.
  • (d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.
  • (e) As used in this section, “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue” includes:
    • (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,
    • (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,
    • (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or
    • (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
  • (f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.
  • (g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.
  • (h) For purposes of this section, “complaint” includes “cross-complaint” and “petition,” “plaintiff” includes “cross-complainant” and “petitioner,” and “defendant” includes “cross-defendant” and “respondent.”
  • (i) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable under Section 904.1.
  • (j)
    • (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees.
    • (2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other appropriate electronic media.

History of statute:

1992 — Senate Bill 264 (Lockyer). For a list of organizations and newspapers that supported enactment of the original statute, see Supporters of 1992 Anti-SLAPP Bill.

1993 — The statute was amended to require award of costs and attorney fees to the plaintiff if the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

1997 — Senate Bill 1296 (Lockyer). The statute was amended in light of appellate court opinions that had narrowly construed application of the statute to disputes involving matters of “public interest”. In amending the statute, the Legislature clarified its intent that any conduct in furtherance of the rights of petition or free speech is protected under the anti-SLAPP law.

1999 — Assembly Bill 1675 (Assembly Judiciary Committee). Under the original statute, a defendant whose special motion to strike a complaint was denied could challenge the denial only through a petition for a writ in the Court of Appeal. Writs are discretionary, disfavored, and rarely successful. If, however, a plaintiff’s complaint were dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike, the plaintiff was able to appeal the dismissal immediately. Thus, the statute was amended to give the SLAPP target — the person whom the anti-SLAPP law was designed to protect — the same ability as the filer of the SLAPP to challenge an adverse trial court decision. See also Supporters of AB 1675.

2005 — Assembly Bill 1158 (Lieber). The statute was amended to overrule the decision by the California Supreme Court in Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, which held that the trial court’s erroneous denial of an anti-SLAPP motion constitutes probable cause for filing and maintaining a SLAPP, as well as the decisions in Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc.(2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, and Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Rights Coalition, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, which held that the 30-day period in which to schedule a hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion is jurisdictional.

2009 — The statute was amended to add section 425.16(c)(2), which provides that a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion may not be awarded fees on claims of violation of the public records act or open meetings law. cited source

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Note: This page covers information specific to California. For general information concerning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), see the overview section of this guide.

You can use California’s anti-SLAPP statute to counter a SLAPP suit filed against you. The statute allows you to file a special motion to strike a complaint filed against you based on an “act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. If a court rules in your favor, it will dismiss the plaintiff’s case early in the litigation and award you attorneys’ fees and court costs.  In addition, if a party to a SLAPP suit seeks your personal identifying information, California law allows you to make a motion to quash the discovery order, request, or subpoena.

Activities Covered By The California Anti-SLAPP Statute

Not every unwelcome lawsuit is a SLAPP. In California, the term applies to lawsuits brought primarily to discourage speech about issues of public significance or public participation in government proceedings. To challenge a lawsuit as a SLAPP, you need to show that the plaintiff is suing you for an “act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Although people often use terms like “free speech” and “petition the government” loosely in popular speech, the anti-SLAPP law gives this phrase a particular legal meaning, which includes four categories of activities:

  1. any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
  2. any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
  3. any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or
  4. any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e)(1-4). As an online publisher, you are most likely to rely on the third category above, which applies to a written statement in a public forum on an issue of public interest.

Under California law, a publicly accessible website is considered a public forum. See Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510, 514 n.4 (Cal. 2006). The website does not have to allow comments or other public participation, so long as it is publicly available over the Internet. See Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal. App. 4th 883, 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).

Many different kinds of statements may relate to an issue of public interest. California courts look at factors such as whether the subject of the disputed statement was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest. Certainly, statements educating the public about or taking a position on a controversial issue in local, state, national, or international politics would qualify. Some other examples include:

  • Statements about the character of a public official, see Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1006 (2005);
  • Statements about the financial solvency of a large institution, such as a hospital, see Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. v. Fitzgibbons, 140 Cal. App. 4th 515, 523 (2006);
  • Statements about a celebrity, or a person voluntarily associating with a celebrity, see Ronson v. Lavandeira, BC 374174 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2007);
  • Statements about an ideological opponent in the context of debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see Neuwirth v. Silverstein, SC 094441 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 27, 2007); and
  • Statements about the governance of a homeowners association, see Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal. App. 4th 468 (2000).

In contrast, California courts have found other statements to be unrelated to an issue of public interest, including:

  • statements about the character of a person who is not in the public eye, see Dyer v. Childress, 147 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1281 (2007); and
  • statements about the performance of contractual obligations or other private interests, see Ericsson GE Mobile Communs. v. C.S.I. Telcoms. Eng’rs. 49 Cal. App. 4th 1591 (1996).

Although the anti-SLAPP statute is meant to prevent lawsuits from chilling speech and discouraging public participation, you do not need to show that the SLAPP actually discouraged you from participating or speaking out. Nor do you need to show that the plaintiff bringing the SLAPP intended to restrict your free speech.

Protections for Personal Identifying Information Sought in a SLAPP suit

In addition to providing a motion to strike, California law also allows a person whose identifying information is sought in connection with a claim arising from act in exercise of anonymous free speech rights to file a motion to quash — that is, to void or modify the subpoena seeking your personal identifying information so you do not have to provide that information. Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 1987.1.

How To Use The California Anti-SLAPP Statute

The California anti-SLAPP statute gives you the ability to file a motion to strike (i.e., to dismiss) a complaint brought against you for engaging in protected speech or petition activity (discussed above). If you are served with a complaint that you believe to be a SLAPP, you should seek legal assistance immediately. Successfully filing and arguing a motion to strike can be complicated, and you and your lawyer need to move quickly to avoid missing important deadlines. You should file your motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute within sixty days of being served with the complaint. A court may allow you to file the motion after sixty days, but there is no guarantee that it will do so. Keep in mind that, although hiring legal help is expensive, you can recover your attorneys’ fees if you win your motion.

One of the benefits of the anti-SLAPP statute is that it enables you to get the SLAPP suit dismissed quickly. When you file a motion to strike, the clerk of the court will schedule a hearing on your motion within thirty days after filing. Additionally, once you file your motion, the plaintiff generally cannot engage in “discovery” — that is, the plaintiff generally may not ask you to produce documents, sit for a deposition, or answer formal written questions, at least not without first getting permission from the court.

In ruling on a motion to strike, a court will first consider whether you have established that the lawsuit arises out of a protected speech or petition activity (discussed above). Assuming you can show this, the court will then require the plaintiff to introduce evidence supporting the essential elements of its legal claim. Because a true SLAPP is not meant to succeed in court, but only to intimidate and harass, a plaintiff bringing such a lawsuit will not be able to make this showing, and the court will dismiss the case. On the other hand, if the plaintiff’s case is strong, then the court will not grant your motion to strike, and the lawsuit will move ahead like any ordinary case.

If the court denies your motion to strike, you are entitled to appeal the decision immediately.

In addition to creating the motion to strike, the statute also allows a person whose personal identifying information is sought in connection with a claim arising from act in exercise of anonymous free speech rights to file a motion to quash — that is, to void or terminate the subpoena, request, or discovery order seeking your personal identifying information so you do not have to provide that information.

When you make your motion to quash, the court “may” grant your request if it is “reasonably made.” In reviewing your motion, the court will probably require the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing, meaning he or she must present evidence to support all of the elements of the underlying claim (or, at least, all of the elements within the plaintiff’s control).  See Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1171 fn. 12 (Cal. App. 6 Dist. 2008). If the plaintiff cannot make that showing, the court will probably quash the subpoena and keep your identity secret.

If you are served with a SLAPP in California, you can report it to the California Anti-SLAPP Project and request assistance. The California Anti-SLAPP Project also has two excellent guides on dealing with a SLAPP suit in California, Survival Guide for SLAPP Victims and Defending Against A SLAPP. In addition, the First Amendment Project has an excellent step-by-step guide to the legal process of defending against a SLAPP in California.

What Happens If You Win A Motion To Strike

If you prevail on a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, the court will dismiss the lawsuit against you, and you will be entitled to recover your attorneys’ fees and court costs. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c).

Additionally, if you win your motion to strike and believe that you can show that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in order to harass or silence you rather than to resolve a legitimate legal claim, then consider filing a “SLAPPback” suit against your opponent. A “SLAPPback” is a lawsuit you can bring against the person who filed the SLAPP suit to recover compensatory and punitive damages for abuse of the legal process. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.18 (setting out certain procedural rules for “SLAPPback” suits). Section 425.18 contemplates bringing a SLAPPback in a subsequent lawsuit after the original SLAPP has been dismissed, but you might be able to bring a SLAPPback as a counterclaim in the original lawsuit. You should not underestimate the considerable expense required to bring a SLAPPback, like any lawsuit, to a successful conclusion.

If your successful motion to quash arises out of a lawsuit filed in a California court, the judge has discretion to award expenses incurred in making the motion. The court will award fees if the plaintiff opposed your motion “in bad faith or without substantial justification,” or if at least one part of the subpoena was “oppressive.” Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 1987.2(a). But note that if you lose your motion to quash, and the court decides that your motion was made in bad faith, you may have to pay the plaintiff’s costs of opposing the motion.

If you successfully quash a California identity-seeking subpoena that relates to a lawsuit filed in another state, the court “shall” award all reasonably expenses incurred in making your motion – including attorneys’ fees – if the following conditions are met:

  • the subpoena was served on an Internet service provider or other Section 230 computer service provider;
  • the underlying lawsuit arose from your exercise of free speech on the Internet; and
  • the plaintiff failed to make his prima facie showing.

Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 1987.2(b). Jurisdiction: California Subject Area: SLAPP cited https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-california

California Has a Very Strong Anti-SLAPP Law. California Anti-SLAPP Law

California Anti-SLAPP Law

California has a strong anti-SLAPP law. To challenge a SLAPP suit in California, defendants must show that they are being sued for “any act . . . in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019). Under the statute, the rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue include four categories of activities: statements made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by a governmental body; statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; and any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or petition rights in connection with “a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 425.16(e).

California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest. Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81, 89–90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Under this standard, statements that report or comment on controversial political, economic, and social issues, from the local to the international level, would certainly qualify. Conversely, a California court has held that statements about a person who was not in the public eye did not relate to an issue of public interest. Dyer v. Childress, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).

The California anti-SLAPP law allows a defendant to file a motion to strike the complaint, which the court will hear within 30 days unless the docket is overbooked. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(f). Discovery activities are placed on hold from the time the motion is filed until the court has ruled on it, although the judge may permit “specified discovery” if the requesting party provides notice of its request to the other side and can show good cause for it. § 425.16(g).

In ruling on the motion to strike, a California court will first determine whether the defendant established that the lawsuit arose from one of the statutorily defined protected speech or petition activities. Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). If that is the case, the judge will grant the motion unless the plaintiff can show a probability that he will prevail on the claim. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). In making this determination, the court will consider the plaintiff’s complaint, the SLAPP defendant’s motion to strike, and any sworn statements containing facts on which the assertions in those documents are based. § 425.16(b)(2).

If the court grants the motion to strike, it must impose attorney’s fees and costs on the plaintiff, except when the basis for the lawsuit stemmed from California’s public records or open meetings laws. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1)-(2). These laws provide separate provisions for recovering attorney’s fees and costs.

The California anti-SLAPP law also gives a successful defendant who can show that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit to harass or silence the speaker the ability to file a so-called “SLAPPback” lawsuit against his or her opponent. § 425.18. Under this remedy, a SLAPP defendant who won a motion to strike may sue the plaintiff who filed the SLAPP suit to recover damages for abuse of the legal process. Conversely, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs if the court finds that the motion to strike was frivolous or brought solely to delay the proceedings. § 425.16(c)(1).

Either party is entitled to immediately appeal the court’s decision on the motion to strike. § 425.16(i).

To learn more, read San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow’s “decision-tree,” depicting  how anti-SLAPP motions are processed in California. source

 

California  Anti-SLAPP Caselaw

Recent Developments in California Anti-SLAPP Case Law, Summer 2021

 

Click for PDF

This alert surveys recent case law and legislative developments involving California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e).  The anti-SLAPP statute offers defendants in actions brought pursuant to California law a powerful procedural tool to seek early dismissal of lawsuits that target defendants’ actions taken in furtherance of their “right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.”[1]

Courts apply a two-pronged analytical framework to evaluate an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike.  The first is the “protected activity” prong, under which the defendant has the burden of proving that the activity that gave rise to the plaintiff’s cause of action arises from one of the four enumerated categories under § 425.16(e):

  1. any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,
  2. any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,
  3. any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or
  4. any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

If the first prong is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish on the second prong that “there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”[2]  Giving additional teeth to the law, a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion.[3]

Below, we discuss recent substantive decisions by state and federal courts that apply the anti-SLAPP statute’s framework to lawsuits in the media, finance, employment, and real estate contexts and which involve claims regarding revenge porn, trade libel, unfair competition, business torts, and employment discrimination, and also implicate the law’s commercial-speech exemption.

1.  Hill v. Heslep et al., Case No. 20STCV48797 (Apr. 7, 2021, L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct.)

Facts:  Plaintiff Katherine Hill, a former U.S. Representative from California’s 25th congressional district, sued Mail Media, Inc. (publisher of the Daily Mail) in a California state court for publishing to its MailOnline website nonconsensually distributed nude photographs of Hill.[4]  The photographs had been disseminated by Kenneth Heslep, Hill’s ex-husband (also named as a defendant).  Hill also sued talk-radio host Joe Messina for statements referencing the images that he made on-air and in an article posted to his blog, as well as Salem Media Group, Inc. (owner of the conservative political blog RedState) and RedState editor Jennifer Van Laar for their alleged roles in the distribution of the nude photos.  Hill alleged that the actions of each defendant violated California Civil Code § 1708.85, the state’s revenge porn law, which prohibits the “distribution” of certain types of intimate photographs (among other types of media) without the consent of the depicted individual.  Distribution is not defined by the statute, but Judge Yolanda Orozco of the Los Angeles County Superior Court construed it broadly enough to include activities such as dissemination of prohibited photographs by an individual to others as well as publication by media outlets.  On April 7, 2021, Judge Orozco heard and granted Mail Media’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike; Hill has filed a notice of appeal.

Prong 1:  In analyzing prong one, Judge Orozco noted that “reporting the news is speech subject to the protections of the First Amendment and subject to an anti-SLAPP motion if the report concerns a public issue or an issue of public interest,”[5] and “‘[t]he character and qualifications of a candidate for public office constitutes a “public issue or public interest”’ for purposes of section 425.16.”[6]  While the court agreed with Hill that “the gravamen of her Complaint against [Mail Media] is [its] distribution of Plaintiff’s intimate images,”[7] it noted that this distribution occurred via an online news publication, and the “intimate images published by Defendant spoke to Plaintiff’s character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly depicted Plaintiff with a campaign staffer whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show Plaintiff using a then-illegal drug…”[8]  Thus, “the gravamen of Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant constitutes protected activity under Section 425.16(e)(3) and (4).”[9]

Prong 2:  On the second (merits) prong, Judge Orozco noted that Hill’s claims presented a novel intersection of California’s anti-SLAPP and revenge porn laws.  Section 1708.85(a) states, in relevant part,

A private cause of action lies against a person who intentionally distributes… a photograph… of another, without the other’s consent, if (1) the person knew that the other person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private, (2) the distributed material exposes an intimate body part of the other person… and (3) the other person suffers general or special damages…

However, Judge Orozco held that the newspaper’s activities fell squarely within the “matter of public concern” exemption contained in § 1708.85(c)(4), as the published images “speak to Plaintiff’s character and qualifications for her position as a Congresswoman.”[10]  Thus, “Plaintiff failed to carry her burden establishing that there is a probability of success on the merits of her claim.”[11]

Other Case Notes & Attorneys’ Fees Awards:  In a subsequent hearing on June 2, 2021, Judge Orozco granted Mail Media’s motion for costs and prevailing-party attorneys’ fees, totaling $104,747.75.[12]  The dismissal of Mail Media’s claims followed the earlier dismissals and awards of attorneys’ fees for all of the other defendants except for Heslep, the lone defendant remaining in the case.[13]  In total, Hill has been ordered to pay over $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to the prevailing defendants.[14]

Of note, Hill was ordered to pay $30,000 in fees and costs to Messina, the radio personality who merely commented about the pictures on his program and blog.[15]  Shortly after Messina filed his anti-SLAPP motion to strike, but before the scheduled hearing, Hill voluntarily withdrew her claims against Messina.  Despite this, Judge Orozco entertained Messina’s motion for attorneys’ fees as the prevailing defendant under Section 425.16.  Judge Orozco noted that “‘because a defendant who has been sued in violation of his… free speech rights is entitled to an award of attorney fees, the trial court must, upon defendant’s motion for a fee award, rule on the merits of the SLAPP motion even if the matter has been dismissed prior to the hearing on that motion.’”[16]  Judge Orozco concluded that Messina was the prevailing party on the merits of the motion to strike and granted the motion for attorneys’ fees.

While the trial court’s orders are non-precedential, the Court of Appeal will have a chance to review them, as on June 18, 2021, Hill filed notices of appeal for the orders granting the anti-SLAPP motions of Mail Media, Van Laar, and Salem Media.

2.   Muddy Waters, LLC v. Superior Court, 62 Cal. App. 5th 905 (2021)

Facts:  In 2017, Perfectus Aluminum, Inc., a distributor of aluminum products, sued Muddy Waters, LLC, a financial analysis firm that engages in activist short selling, following the latter’s publication of a pair of reports that allegedly implicated Perfectus in a scheme to inflate aluminum sales for Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd., a publicly traded Chinese company.[17]  The two reports (“Dupré Reports”) were published by Muddy Waters on a publicly accessible website under the business pseudonym “Dupré Analytics.”  In its complaint, Perfectus alleged that U.S. Customs detained a shipment of the company’s aluminum awaiting export in the port of Long Beach and lost potential business as a result of the allegations in the Dupré Reports, bringing claims for 1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law; 2) trade libel; and 3) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

The Superior Court of San Bernardino County denied Muddy Waters’s anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that Muddy Waters failed to prove that the causes of action arose from protected activity and, alternatively, that the commercial speech exemption of Section 425.17(c) applied to the publication of the Dupré Reports, thereby barring an anti-SLAPP challenge.  Because the trial court found Section 425.17 applied, Muddy Waters lacked the immediate right of appeal that is otherwise available upon denial of an anti-SLAPP motion and thus sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal.

Prong 1:  The Court of Appeal began its analysis of the first prong by highlighting the third category of protected activities in § 425.16(e):  “any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.”  The Court divided the first prong’s analysis into two stages.  In the first stage, the Court determined whether a publicly accessible website constitutes a public forum, and found that it does, as “Internet postings on websites that ‘are open and free to anyone who wants to read the messages’ and ‘accessible free of charge to any member of the public’ satisfies the public forum requirement of section 425.16.”[18]

In the second stage, the Court asked whether the content of the Dupré Reports represented an issue of public interest, and found that it did because the reports alleged that Zhongwang was artificially inflating reported sales and allegations of “mismanagement or investor scams” made against a publicly traded company constitute an “issue of public interest” for purposes of the anti-SLAPP law.[19]

Commercial Speech Exemption:  Before moving to the merits prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, the Court of Appeal addressed the trial court’s determination that the § 425.17(c) commercial speech exemption applied, thereby barring Muddy Waters’s ability to bring an anti-SLAPP motion.  The Court noted that the plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish the applicability of the commercial speech exemption, and that the exemption is “narrow,” excluding only a “‘subset of commercial speech—specifically, comparative advertising.’”[20]  Thus, it noted, the commercial speech exemption is triggered only with respect to “speech or conduct by a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services when… that challenged [speech or] conduct pertains to the business of the speaker or his or her competitors.”[21]  In other words, the Court noted, the commercial speech exemption does not apply in circumstances like the current case, where a defendant has made representations of fact about a noncompetitor’s goods in order to promote sales of the defendant’s goods or services.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s determination that the commercial speech exemption applied and barred Muddy Waters from bringing an anti-SLAPP motion.

Prong 2:  The Court of Appeal next determined whether Perfectus had satisfied the merits prong for each of its three causes of action.

For the California UCL claim, the Court wrote that “nothing in the record suggests that plaintiff has lost money or property such that it would have standing to pursue a UCL action against Muddy Waters.”[22]  The Court found that Perfectus had not produced any evidence that would establish a nexus between the alleged unfair practice (publication of the Dupré Reports) and the loss of property (the aluminum that was detained by U.S. Customs), and therefore lacked standing to bring a UCL claim.

For the trade libel claim, the Court noted that Perfectus failed to produce evidence identifying a specific third party that was deterred from conducting business with Perfectus as a result of the Dupré Reports, a required element for the claim.  It wrote, “‘it is not enough to show a general decline in [Perfectus’s] business resulting from the falsehood, even where no other cause for it is apparent… it is only the loss of specific sales [as a result of the defendant’s actions] that can be recovered.’”[23]  Thus, Perfectus’s failure to specify a particular business partner that was convinced by the Dupré Reports to refrain from dealing with Perfectus doomed the trade libel cause of action.

Finally, on the intentional-interference-with-prospective-economic-advantage claim, the Court noted that Perfectus would need to prove an “actual economic relationship with a third party”[24] and that the relationship “‘contains the probability of future economic benefit to [Perfectus],’”[25] but that Perfectus failed to submit evidence that identified such an actual economic relationship with a specific third party.[26]

Result:  The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate its order denying Muddy Waters’s anti-SLAPP motion and to enter in its place a new order granting the motion.  Perfectus has sought review in the California Supreme Court.

3.   Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 63 Cal. App. 5th 776 (2021)

Facts:  Plaintiff Junnie Verceles, a Filipino man who was 46 years old at the time he filed his complaint in March 2019, was a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District from 1998 until his termination on March 13, 2018.[27]  On December 1, 2015, following unspecified allegations of misconduct, Verceles was reassigned and placed on paid suspension, which Verceles described as “teacher jail.”  In November 2016, Verceles filed a discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) while an investigation by the District into the alleged misconduct was still underway.  The DFEH case was closed on March 7, 2017, and roughly one year later, the District terminated Verceles’s employment.  Verceles alleged three violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA):  1) age discrimination, 2) race and national origin discrimination, and 3) retaliation; in response, the District filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike each of the three causes of action.  After the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted the District’s motion, Verceles appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed.

Prong 1:  The District argued that each cause of action arose out of its investigation into teacher misconduct, and was thus protected activity under § 425.16(e).  Verceles argued that the gravamen of his complaint was not the investigation into teacher misconduct, but the discrimination and retaliation that resulted in his firing by the District.  The trial court granted the motion, characterizing the investigation and resulting termination (and alleged discrimination and retaliation) as a single “proceeding” that gave rise to the causes of action.

The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the District’s attempt to “define the alleged adverse action broadly to encompass the entirety of its investigation into Verceles’s purported misconduct.”[28]  Instead, the Court found persuasive Verceles’s argument that the investigation as a whole into his alleged misconduct was not tainted by discriminatory or retaliatory intent.  After all, Verceles argued, the investigation began before Verceles filed his DFEH complaint, and so up to that point, there was nothing for the District to retaliate against.  Furthermore, Verceles argued, the District’s other investigations into alleged misconduct did not demonstrate a pattern of discrimination against protected groups that resulted in the requisite disparate impact; however, according to Verceles, the District’s termination practices and use of “teacher’s jail” to discipline a relative few number of teachers like him did demonstrate such a pattern of disparate, adverse impacts on protected groups.  Thus, the Court concluded that the activities that underpinned Verceles’s complaint were his reassignment to “teacher’s jail” and termination.

The District argued that the “investigation was an ‘official proceeding authorized by law’ for purposes of [425.16(e)(2)],” and that all actions taken in the course of the investigation—including the decision to reassign and terminate Verceles—fell within the ambit of this protected activity.[29]  The Court acknowledged that the District was generally correct to state that an investigation into alleged misconduct by a public employee is categorized as “an official proceeding”; however, the Court rejected the idea that every action taken during the course of such an investigation constituted a protected activity for anti-SLAPP purposes.[30]  “Such an interpretation,” wrote the Court, “ignores the plain language of the statute, which requires a claim be based on a written or oral statement made in connection with the proceeding.”[31]  Instead, Section 425.16(e) protects the District’s speech and petitioning activity “that led up to or contributed” to the decision to reassign and terminate Verceles, but it did not protect the actual acts of reassignment and termination.[32]  Thus, “In the absence of any oral or written statements from which Verceles’ claims arise, the District’s decisions to place Verceles on leave and terminate his employment are not protected activity within the meaning of [Section 425.16(e)(2)].”[33]

Result:  Thus, the Court held that the District failed to meet its burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis and reversed the trial court’s judgment granting the District’s motion to strike and motion for attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.  The Court also granted Verceles’s the costs related to his appeal of the order granting the motion to strike.  The District filed a petition for review, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.

4.   Appel v. Wolf, 839 F. App’x 78 (9th Cir. 2020)

Facts:  Defendant Robert Wolf is an attorney who represents Concierge Auctions, LLC, a company that specializes in auctioning off luxury real estate.  A dispute arose between Concierge and the plaintiff Howard Appel over the sale of property in Fiji.  During the course of this dispute, Wolf sent an email containing an allegedly defamatory statement that Wolf knew Appel and that Appel “had legal issues (securities fraud).”[34]  After Appel sued Wolf for defamation, Wolf filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike, arguing that the statements in the email were made pursuant to settlement discussions in the course of litigation and so were protected under Section 425.16.  The district court denied the motion to strike and Wolf appealed.  Though it found the district court erred in its prong-one analysis, the Ninth Circuit found such error harmless and therefore affirmed.

Prong 1:  In its first prong analysis, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in holding that Wolf’s email communication was not protected activity, as acts that occur in the course of litigation “are generally considered protected conduct falling within section 425.16(e)(2)’s broad ambit.”[35]  The panel noted that “[t]his protection extends to ‘an attorney’s communication with opposing counsel on behalf of a client regarding pending litigation’ and includes ‘an offer of settlement to counsel.’”[36]  The panel then found that “[t]he district court misapplied California law when it reasoned that Wolf’s email—which was sent to Appel’s counsel, allegedly ‘begging for a phone[-]call discussion about possible settlement of Appel’s case against Concierge’—was insufficiently concrete to qualify as protected conduct,” because “Section 425.16(e)(2) has no such ‘concreteness’ requirement.”[37]  Thus, the allegedly libelous email qualified for Section 425.16(e)(2)’s protection, and Wolf satisfied his burden of establishing the first prong.

Prong 2:  However, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s error on prong one was ultimately harmless, because Appel was “reasonably likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, given that Wolf’s email was facially defamatory and not immunized by California’s litigation privilege.”[38]  First, the complaint’s allegations and the email itself supported the district court’s finding that Wolf’s statement “would have negative, injurious ramifications on [Appel’s] integrity.”[39]  Next, though Wolf’s statement was made in the context of settlement negotiations, the panel held it was not privileged, as “the privilege ‘does not prop the barn door wide open’ for every defamatory ‘charge or innuendo,’ merely because the libelous statement is included in a presumptively privileged communication,”[40] and “Appel established that Wolf’s false insinuation that he had been involved in securities fraud is not reasonably relevant to Appel’s underlying dispute with Concierge.”[41]

Result:  The Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the district court’s denial of Wolf’s anti-SLAPP motion.

5.   SB 329 Proposes Limitation on Use of Anti-SLAPP Motions in “No Contest” Wills and Trust Actions

Finally, a new bill, California Senate Bill 329, introduced by Senator Brian Jones (R, 38th Dist.), proposes to prohibit the use of anti-SLAPP motions in actions relating to wills and trusts.  The bill would amend Section 425.17 to add the following provision: “(e) Section 425.16 does not apply to an action to enforce a no contest clause contained in a will, trust, or other instrument.  As used in this subdivision, ‘no contest clause’ has the meaning provided in Section 21310 of the Probate Code.”  A “no-contest” clause is a provision that disinherits a beneficiary who challenges a will or trust.

The Senate Floor Analysis of the bill notes that “[a]lthough commonly associated with the protection of constitutional rights, the anti-SLAPP statute applies to a broad range of contexts, including proceedings to enforce a no-contest clause in a trust or will that penalizes beneficiaries who challenge the terms of the will without probable cause.”  The Senate Judiciary notes that two recent Court of Appeal cases “establish that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to no-contest enforcement petitions.”[42]  SB 329 is sponsored by the California Conference of Bar Associations and the Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association, which “argue that the statute was not intended to apply in this context and that it offers minimal upside while opening the door to needless litigation and cost.”

 

  •     [1]             Cal. Civ. Code § 425.16(b)(1).
  •     [2]             Id.
  •     [3]             Id. § 425.16(c)(1).
  •     [4]             Hill v. Heslep et al., Case No. 20STCV48797, at *1 (Apr. 7, 2021, L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct.).
  •     [5]             Id. at *8 (citing Liberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 4th 156, 164 (2003)).
  •     [6]             Id. at *6-7 (quoting Collier v. Harris, 240 Cal. App. 4th 41, 52 (2015)).
  •     [7]             Id. at *7-8.
  •     [8]             Id. at *8.
  •     [9]             Id. at *7.
  •     [10]            Id. at *13.
  •     [11]            Id.
  •     [12]            Hill v. Heslep et al., Case No. 20STCV48797 at *5 (Super. Ct. of L.A. Cnty., June 2, 2021).
  •     [13]            Nathan Solis, Katie Hill Owes Daily Mail $105K for Attorney Fees in Nude Photo Fight, Courthouse News Service (June 2, 2021),
    https://www.courthousenews.com/katie-hill-owes-daily-mail-105k-for-attorney-fees-in-nude-photo-fight/.
  •     [14]            Id.
  •     [15]            Hill v. Heslep, et. al., Case No. 20STCV48797, at *12 (Super. Ct. of L.A. Cnty., May 4, 2021).
  •     [16]            Id. at *3 (citing Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard, 101 Cal. App. 4th 211, 218 (2002)).
  •     [17]            Muddy Waters, LLC v. Superior Ct., 62 Cal. App. 5th 905, 912-93 (2021), reh’g denied (Apr. 23, 2021), petition for review filed (May 18, 2021).
  •     [18]            Muddy Waters, 62 Cal. App. 5th at 917 (citing ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal. App. 4th 993, 1007 (2001)).
  •     [19]            Id. at 918.
  •     [20]            Id. at 919-20 (citing Dean v. Friends of Pine Meadow, 21 Cal. App. 5th 91, 105 (2018)).
  •     [21]            Id. at 919.
  •     [22]            Id. at 923.
  •     [23]            Id. at 925 (citing Erlich v. Etner, 224 Cal. App. 2d 69, 73 (1964)).
  •     [24]            Id. at 926.
  •     [25]            Id. (citing Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal 4th 1134, 1164 (2003)).
  •     [26]            Muddy Waters, 62 Cal. App. 5th at 926-27.
  •     [27]            Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 63 Cal. App. 5th 776, 779 (2021), petition for review filed (June 3, 2021).
  •     [28]            Id. at 785.
  •     [29]            Id. at 787.
  •     [30]            Id.
  •     [31]            Id.
  •     [32]            Id.
  •     [33]            Id. at 788.
  •     [34]            Appel v. Wolf, 839 F. App’x 78, 80 (9th Cir. 2020).
  •     [35]            Id.
  •     [36]            Id. (citing GeneThera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould Pro. Corp., 171 Cal. App. 4th 901, 905 (2009)).
  •     [37]            Id. at 80.
  •     [38]            Id.
  •     [39]            Id.
  •     [40]            Id. at 81 (quoting Nguyen v. Proton Technology Corp., 69 Cal. App. 4th 140, 150 (1999)).
  •     [41]            Id.
  •     [42]            Citing Key v. Tyler, 34 Cal. App. 5th 505 (2019); Urick v. Urick, 15 Cal. App. 5th 1182 (2017).

source

California Anti-SLAPP Motions Are Safe in Federal Courts . . . For Now

For over two decades, the Ninth Circuit has treated California’s anti-SLAPP statute as substantive law and refrained from applying the Erie doctrine to question whether anti-SLAPP motions generally should be precluded in federal courts absent a “direct conflict.”1 2 Anti-SLAPP motions are often favored by defendants in California, as they can provide speedy relief for individuals or entities sued for conduct involving their rights of free speech or petition to potentially obtain an early exit from litigation before significant costs accrue, by creating a procedural mechanism whereby defendants can require plaintiffs alleging such claims to substantiate their merits at the case’s earliest stages.3

In recent years, however, federal courts across at least five circuits have called this deferential approach into question when evaluating their own respective states’ versions of similar statutes. Rather than holistically defer to state anti-SLAPP laws as substantive absent a “direct conflict,” courts in the Second, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, along with the D.C. Circuit, have consistently invoked the Erie doctrine to evaluate whether each anti-SLAPP provision is substantive or procedural.4

In August 2022, the Ninth Circuit spoke up to reaffirm its position regarding the propriety of anti-SLAPP motions in federal courts within its jurisdiction. Recognizing the deepening divide ripping across the country, the Court in CoreCivic v. Candide Group again protected California’s anti-SLAPP statute from the Erie inquiry, holding that no basis existed to undermine its previous position that no conflict justifies precluding the motions in Ninth Circuit federal courts.5 6

While acknowledging the existence of out-of-circuit decisions holding otherwise with respect to other states’ anti-SLAPP statutes, these sister circuit decisions left the Ninth Circuit unfazed with its approach to California’s statute.7 Furthermore, the Court quelled minority opinions within the Ninth Circuit that suggested California’s anti-SLAPP statutes are trumped by the Federal Rules of Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56, governing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, respectively.8 Rather, the Court reconciled any potential conflicts by explaining that anti-SLAPP statute provisions “must be analyzed under the same standard” that Rules 12(b)(6) and 56 impose, again treating the anti-SLAPP provisions as purely substantive.9

CoreCivic may cause a ripple effect across other circuits and deepen the stark divide. The issue is ripe for the Supreme Court to break its longstanding silence on whether and to what extent state anti-SLAPP laws are preempted.10 While the silence has sparked creative potential alternatives, such as the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), a model anti-SLAPP statute approved by the Uniform Law Commission in 2020, states have been slow to adopt it, leaving litigants in other jurisdictions open to the possibility of forum shopping in circuits that view state anti-SLAPP statutes as conflicting with federal law.11 Litigants in the Ninth Circuit, however, need not worry about such things—at least not yet.

  • 1 See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 1999) (hereinafter “Newsham”) (internal citations omitted) (In the absence of a “direct collision” between a state anti-SLAPP law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, state statute applies in federal diversity actions.).
  • 2 It is well-established that when state law conflicts with federal law, courts use the Erie test to determine which law applies. The first step to the Erie test is whether “a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ‘answer[s] the same question’ as the [special motion to strike].” Abbas v. Foreign Pol’y Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328, 1335 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398-99 (2010)). If the result is in the affirmative, then the Federal Rule governs. Id. Although an exception arises if the Federal Rule violates the Rules Enabling Act, the U.S. Supreme court has “rejected every challenge to the Federal Rules that it has considered under the Rules Enabling Act.” Id. at 1336.
  • 3 Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 426.16.
  • 4 See La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79, 86–88 (2d Cir. 2020); Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240, 244–49 (5th Cir. 2019); Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. AmeriCulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659, 668–73 (10th Cir. 2018); Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc., 910 F.3d 1345, 1349–57 (11th Cir. 2018); Abbas v. Foreign Pol’y Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328, 1333–37 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
  • 5 CoreCivic v. Candide Grp., No. 20-17285, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24417, at *10-12 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2022), reh’g denied en banc, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 29257 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022).
  • 6 Greenberg Traurig, LLP has represented and continues to represent CoreCivic in a wide array of matters, but did not participate in the Candide litigation.
  • 7 CoreCivic, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24417, at *15.
  • 8 Id. at *16.
  • 9 Id.
  • 10 The Supreme Court has consistently refused to take cases involving state anti-SLAPP laws. See, e.g., Yagman v. Edmondson, 723 Fed. App’x 463 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 823 (2019); Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018), cert denied, 139 S. Ct. 1446 (2019). As recently as February 2021, the Supreme Court again refused by denying review in Clifford v. Trump, 141 S.Ct. 1374 (2021), which presented the conflict between the Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit’s holdings on the applicability of the Texas anti-SLAPP law in federal court.
  • 11 Only three states have enacted UPEPA (Hawaii, Kentucky, and Washington), and five states have introduced it (Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, and North Carolina) as of November 2022. See Public Expression Protection Act, Uniform Law Commission (Nov. 1, 2022).

source

 

SLAPP Cases Decided by the California Supreme Court

 

SLAPP Cases Decided by the California Supreme Court

The following are opinions issued by the California Supreme Court concerning the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16).  Clicking on the name of the case will lead to the text of the opinion.  For opinions issued in and after 2014, clicking on the case name will lead to the text of the opinion on Google Scholar.

Baral v. Schnitt
California Supreme Court, 2016
1 Cal.5th 376, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 475, 376 P.3d 604

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint contained causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and a claim for declaratory relief.  Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion sought to strike all references to an audit by an accounting firm.  The trial court denied the motion without deciding whether the complaint contained allegations of protected activity, ruling that the anti-SLAPP motion applied only to entire causes of action as pleaded in the complaint, or to the complaint as a whole, not to isolated allegations within causes of action.  The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, as used in § 425.16(b)(1), “cause of action” referred to allegations of protected activity asserted as grounds for relief, and thus the anti-SLAPP statute could reach distinct claims within pleaded counts, requiring a probability of prevailing on any claim for relief based on allegations of protected activity, even if mixed with assertions of unprotected activity.  The Court disapproved of the opinion in Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90.

Barrett v. Rosenthal
California Supreme Court, 2006
40 Cal.4th 33, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 55, 146 P.3d 510

Three plaintiffs, vocal critics of alternative medicine, sued our client, breast-implant awareness activist Ilena Rosenthal, for defamation and related claims, based on critical comments she made about two of them on the Internet. The trial court granted her anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed this ruling as to two plaintiffs, but reversed as to the third. The California Supreme Court held that the third plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as well, ruling that Rosenthal was protected from civil liability for republication of the words of another on the Internet by section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. On remand, the trial court awarded more than $434,000 for attorneys fees.

Barry v. The State Bar of California
California Supreme Court, Jan. 5, 2017
2 Cal.5th 318, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 386 P.3d 788

Plaintiff attorney filed an action seeking to vacate a stipulation she had entered into to having committed professional misconduct and a 60-day suspension from the practice of law.  The trial court granted the State Bar’s anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that the claims arose from protected activity and that plaintiff could not establish a probability of prevailing, because (inter alia) a superior court lacked subject mater jurisdiction over attorney discipline matters.  The trial court also awarded $2,575 in attorneys’ fees.  Plaintiff appealed the fee award.  The Court of Appeal reversed the fee award, finding  that the trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded it from ruling on the State Bar’s anti-SLAPP motion and awarding fees.  The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and upheld the fee award, holding that the superior court properly found that plaintiff had failed to show a probability of prevailing on her claim because the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that said ruling was not on the merits of plaintiff’s claim.

Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
California Supreme Court, 2021
11 Cal.5th 995, 281 Cal.Rptr. 3d 678, 491 P.3d 1058

Briggs v. ECHO
California Supreme Court, 1999
19 Cal.4th 1106, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 969 P.2d 564

The Briggses, landlords, sued our client, a nonprofit organization that provides counseling, mediation, and referral services related to landlord-tenant disputes, alleging that the organization harassed and defamed them. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed in a 2-1 decision, finding no “issue of public significance” in the defendant’s conduct. In its first case involving the California anti-SLAPP law, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute is to be construed broadly and covers any lawsuit arising from the exercise of the right to petition the government, regardless of the issue involved. In total, the trial court awarded more than $425,000 for attorneys fees and costs.

City of Cotati v. Cashman
California Supreme Court, 2002
29 Cal.4th 69, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 519, 52 P.3d 695
Note:  This case was reviewed together with Navellier v. Sletten and Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

A city’s action for declaratory relief respecting the constitutionality of its ordinance, filed in state court in response to a similar action filed by citizens in federal court, does not constitute a SLAPP and is not subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

City of Montebello v. Vasquez
California Supreme Court, 2016
1 Cal.5th 409, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 499, 376 P.3d 624

A city sued three of its former council members and a former city administrator, claiming they violated Gov. Code, § 1090, by voting on a waste hauling contract in which they held a financial interest.  The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.    The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that defendants’ votes on the contract were not protected activity under § 425.16.  The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the council member defendants’ votes cast in favor of the contract at issue constituted protected activity under § 425.16.

Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club
California Supreme Court, 2008
45 Cal.4th 309, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 196 P.3d 1094

Club Members for an Honest Election (Club) sued the Sierra Club, claiming its elections were unfairly influenced when the board of directors promoted the views that advanced the majority of the Board and members’ position, in conflict with Club’s minority interests. The Court of Appeal applied the public interest litigation exception under C.C.P. 425.17(b) and allowed plaintiff’s claim to proceed, based on the reasoning that the main purpose of the lawsuit was to protect the public interest. The California Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the Court of Appeal applied the exception too broadly. The Supreme Court rejected the appellate court’s application of the “principle thrust or gravamen” test and stated that 425.17(b) must be narrowly interpreted. For a claim to fall within the public interest exception, the plaintiff must seek to advance the public interest, and only the public interest. In this case, plaintiff requested remedies that would benefit Club by advancing its interests within the Sierra Club. By seeking a personal gain, the plaintiff was prohibited from invoking the exception. The Court ruled in favor of the Sierra Club and granted its anti-SLAPP motion.

Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc.
California Supreme Court, 2002
29 Cal.4th 53, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 507, 52 P.3d 685
Note:  This case was reviewed together with Navellier v. Sletten and City of Cotati v. Cashman

The party moving to strike a complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is not required to demonstrate that the action was brought with the intent to chill the exercise of constitutional speech or petition rights.

Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals
California Supreme Court, 2014
58 Cal.4th 655, 168 Cal.Rptr.165, 318 P.3d 833

FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc.
California Supreme Court, 2019
7 Cal.5th 133, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 439 P.3d 1156

Flatley v. Mauro
California Supreme Court, 2006
39 Cal.4th 299, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606, 139 P.3d 2

Flatley, a well-known entertainer, sued attorney Mauro, who threatened to take legal action against him for Flatley’s alleged rape of Mauro’s client. Mauro sent Flatley a “prelitigation settlement” offer demanding payment of $100,000,000 to settle the claim. If Flatley refused to pay, Mauro threatened to not only file a lawsuit, but to widely publicize the rape allegation, including following Flatley around to every place he toured, and to “ruin” Flatley. In addition, Mauro threatened to publicly disclose other alleged criminal violations of immigration and tax law that were entirely unrelated to the rape allegation. The Court of Appeal found that Mauro’s actions constituted extortion as a matter of law, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of his anti-SLAPP motion. The California Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal, holding that a defendant cannot assert the anti-SLAPP statute to protect illegal activity if “either the defendant concedes, or the evidence conclusively establishes, that the assertedly protected speech or petition activity was illegal as a matter of law.” The Court noted that this was a “narrow” exception, based on the extreme circumstance in this case. Thus, the Court held that Mauro’s anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied.

Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc.
California Supreme Court, 2004
34 Cal.4th 679, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 663, 101 P.3d 552

Gates had been convicted of accessory after the fact to a murder and served three years in prison. Several years later Discovery produced a program about the crime, portraying Gates’s involvement. After the program was broadcast, Gates sued Discovery for defamation and invasion of privacy. The trial court granted Discovery’s demurrer to the defamation cause of action but denied its demurrer to the complaint for invasion of privacy. Discovery then filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the latter complaint; the court denied the motion, finding that Discovery had failed to demonstrate that its account of the crime was newsworthy, thus making it likely that Gates would prevail on his complaint for invasion of privacy. The appellate court’s reversal was upheld, since Discovery’s report is protected by the First Amendment and current case law would make it impossible for Gates to prevail on his claim.

Geiser v. Kuhns
California Supreme Court, 2022
13 Cal.5th 1238, 297 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592, 515 P.3d 623

In re Episcopal Church Cases
California Supreme Court, 2009
45 Cal.4th 467, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 275, 198 P.3d 66

The Los Angeles Diocese sued St. James Parish to recover property when the Parish broke with the Episcopal Church, largely over a doctrinal disagreement after the Episcopal Church ordained an openly gay bishop. The Parish filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that its disagreement with the Church arose from protected speech. The trial court granted the motion, which was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision and held that, because the central issue in the case was a property dispute, the anti-SLAPP motion was not appropriate. The Court recognized that protected speech was tangentially at issue, but held that the action must “arise from” protected activity for the defendant to succeed in an anti-SLAPP motion. The Court recognized that protected activity might “lurk in the background,” but found that this would not transform a property dispute into a SLAPP.

Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche
California Supreme Court, 2003
31 Cal.4th 728, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 74 P.3d 737

The court affirms the Court of Appeal’s decision that a malicious prosecution action is not exempt from scrutiny under the state’s anti-SLAPP law.

Ketchum v. Moses
California Supreme Court, 2001
24 Cal.4th 1122, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 17 P.3d 735

Ketchum sued his tenant Moses for allegedly filing false reports with government agencies about the condition of Ketchum’s property. Moses prevailed on a special motion to strike Ketchum’s complaint. Moses had a contingency fee contract with his attorney; if the anti-SLAPP motion failed, the attorney would receive no fee. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute, and included a fee enhancement to reflect the risk of nonpayment in a contingency contract. It later supplemented this award with additional fees and costs after Ketchum attempted to challenge the fee award. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court affirms the judgement of the Court of Appeal but criticizes the rationale of the Court of Appeal. A successful movant of an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled not only to attorney fees incurred in the pursuit of the anti-SLAPP motion, but also to fees incurred in litigating the award of attorney fees. While attorney fees incurred in pursuit of an anti-SLAPP motion may be enhanced to reflect contingent risk, fees incurred after a successful motion may not be so enhanced because an award of fees is mandatory under the anti-SLAPP statute and therefore there is no risk of nonpayment.

Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District
California Supreme Court, 2006
39 Cal.4th 192, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 41, 138 P.3d 193

Physician George Kibler sued defendant hospital and its employees for defamation and other torts after defendants addressed complaints in a peer review meeting that Kibler was verbally abusive and physically threatening at work, resulting in his temporary suspension. Both the trial and appellate courts granted the hospital’s special motion to strike Kibler’s complaint.

The California Supreme Court reviewed the case to establish whether a hospital peer review proceeding was “any other official proceeding authorized by law” under 425.16(e)(2). The court concluded that peer review actions, mandated by the Business and Professions Code, function as a quasi-judicial proceeding and are within the ambit of anti-SLAPP protection. The court affirmed the granting of defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion.

Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter
California Supreme Court, 2019
7 Cal.5th 781, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 444 P.3d 97

Navellier v. Sletten
California Supreme Court, 2002
29 Cal.4th 82, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d 703
Note:  This case was reviewed together with Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc. and City of Cotati v. Cashman

Plaintiffs sued Sletten for a variety of causes, including breach of contract for filing counterclaims in an earlier lawsuit in federal court. Sletten moved to strike this cause of action as a SLAPP, claiming that his counterclaims were protected under the First Amendment’s right of petition. The Court of Appeal (in an unpublished decision) concluded that Sletten’s counterclaims were not a “valid exercise” of that right, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute, since he had earlier waived his right to sue Navellier in a “release of claims” as a condition of return to employment. The Supreme Court reverses, holding that Sletten had met his threshold burden of demonstrating that Navellier’s action for breach of contract “is one arising from the type of speech and petitioning activity that is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.” (See follow-on decision in Navellier v. Sletten, First District Court of Appeal.)

Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
California Supreme Court, 3/22/18

A defendant must file a special motion to strike a cause of action within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that contains that cause of action, pursuant to CCP § 425.16(f), subject to the trial court’s discretion under that subdivision to permit late filing (rejecting contrary ruling in Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298).

Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman
California Supreme Court, 2011
51 Cal.4th 811, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115

Plaintiff sued its former attorney and his law firm for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims.  The attorney had represented the client in obtaining approval for a redevelopment project.  After the representation ended, the attorney campaigned against the city council’s approval of the redevelopment project by soliciting signatures on a referendum petition.  The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, holding that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply.  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the claims arose from protected petitioning activity and plaintiff has not shown a probability of prevailing on its claims.  The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.  Citing the Court’s  “inherent, primary authority over the practice of law,” the Court proceeded directly to the second “prong” (whether plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing on its claims) without addressing the first “prong” (whether the anti-SLAPP law applies).  It found that plaintiff had met its burden on the second “prong,” holding that from the undisputed facts, it was reasonable to infer that the attorney relied on confidential information in opposing the project, the requirement that a lawyer not misuse a client’s confidential information applied to discussion of public issues, and such misuse of information was not protected speech under the First Amendment.

Olson v. Doe
(January 13, 2022, S258498)

Parrish v. Latham & Watkins
California Supreme Court, 2017
3 Cal.5th 767, 400 P.3d 1

The denial of summary judgment barred a subsequent malicious prosecution action under the interim adverse judgment rule, notwithstanding a finding of bad faith.

Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University
California Supreme Court, 2017
2 Cal.5th 1057, 98 Cal. Rptr. 859, 393 P.3d 905

Professor Sungho Park sued the California State University, challenging its decision to deny him tenure, asserting that it was discriminatory.  The University filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was denied by the trial court, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply.  In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the university could invoke the anti-SLAPP law because the professor’s lawsuit was based on communications the university made in the course of arriving at its decision to deny tenure, which were made in connection with an official proceeding.

In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.  The Court held that “a claim is not subject to a motion to strike simply because it contests an action or decision that was arrived at following speech or petitioning activity, or that was thereafter communicated by means of speech or petitioning activity.  Rather, a claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself  is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.”  The Court disapproved of three Court of Appeal opinions, Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District, DeCambre v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, and Tuszynska v. Cunningham.

Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson
California Supreme Court, 2019
6 Cal.5th 610, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 433 P.3d 899

Rusheen v. Cohen
California Supreme Court, 2006
37 Cal.4th 1048, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 128 P.3d 713

Rusheen sued Cohen for abuse of process, for allegedly filing false declarations on the issue of service, and conspiring to execute the resulting default judgment against Rusheen. Cohen filed an anti-SLAPP motion, asserting that Cohen’s conduct was privileged under Civil Code section 47(b) as communications in the course of a judicial proceeding. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The appellate court reversed on the grounds that executing on the improper default judgment was unprivileged, noncommunicative conduct.

The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted. It concluded that where the gravamen of the complaint is a privileged communication (i.e., allegedly perjured declarations of service) the privilege extends to necessarily related noncommunicative acts (i.e., act of levying).

S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti
California Supreme Court, 2006
39 Cal.4th 374, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 360, 138 P.3d 713

When plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their entire action without prejudice before defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, defendants could not recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to 425.16, subsection (c).

Serova vs. Sony Music Entertainment et al.
California Supreme Court, 2022
13 Cal.5th 859

Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore
California Supreme Court, 2010
49 Cal.4th 12, 109 Cal.Rptr. 3d 329, 230 P.3d 1117

In 2004, defendant attorney Pierce Gore placed several newspaper ads advising deck owners of potential legal claims against plaintiff Simpson Strong-Tie. The company sued Gore, listing a litany of claims like trade libel and unfair business practices, for implying that the company’s galvanized screws were defective, and sought to enjoin the ad. When Gore filed a special motion to strike, Simpson Strong-Tie invoked C.C.P. §425.17(c), the commercial speech exception. The trial court rejected Simpson Strong-Tie’s argument and granted the special motion to strike, which was upheld on appeal.

In affirming the Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court looked at the parameters of the commercial speech exception under 425.17(c). The Court held that the burden of showing the applicability of 425.17(c) falls on the plaintiff. The Court then clarified that the purpose of the exception was to stop businesses from using advertising to “trash talk” competitors. Gore sold legal services, not screws—he was not a business competitor with defendant, thus his ad was not the type of speech targeted by subsection (c). Under the two-step analysis, the Court found that Gore’s speech was protected.

Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif
California Supreme Court, 2006
39 Cal.4th 260, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 638. 139 P.3d 30

Plaintiff Peggy Soukup filed a SLAPPback action for abuse of process and malicious prosecution against her former employers after prevailing on her anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiffs’-turned-defendants’ attorney Herbert Hafif then filed a special motion to strike her complaint.

The California Supreme Court considered the legislative purpose of C.C.P. §425.18(h), which precludes a SLAPPback defendant from filing a special motion to strike if the underlying action was illegal as a matter of law; the statute also “stack[s] the procedural deck in favor” of SLAPPback plaintiffs. Finding that the SLAPP Hafif filed against Soukup did not violate various statutes and was not a “sham” lawsuit, the court ruled that Hafif did not break the law in asserting claims against Soukup, despite the fact that his claim was dismissed as a SLAPP. Ultimately, the court found that Soukup showed a probability of prevailing on the malicious prosecution claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In a separate motion, Hafif’s anti-SLAPP appellate counsel Ronald Stock sought to strike Soukup’s claim, arguing that his limited involvement in appealing the anti-SLAPP motion was insufficient to sustain a malicious prosecution claim. The Court rejected this argument based on the evidence.

Sweetwater Union High School District v. Gilbane Building Co.
California Supreme Court, 2019
6 Cal.5th 931, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 434 P.3d 1152

Taus v. Loftus
California Supreme Court, 2007
40 Cal.4th 683, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775. 151 P.3d 1185

Nicole Taus sued defendant authors for defamation and other torts after a journal published articles relating to a psychologist’s study about her as a child. The California Supreme Court reversed the appellate court on several grounds, but affirmed its finding that Taus could proceed with her claim of improper intrusion into private matters.

While recognizing that it is common practice for reporters to conceal motives in newsgathering, the Court drew a distinction, finding that this protection was not so broad as to allow a person to falsely pose as the colleague of a mental health professional to elicit highly personal information about a subject from the subject’s relative or close friend. While a single claim survived on appeal, the Court awarded costs and fees to defendants because the majority of plaintiff’s claims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute.

The Court also expressed reservations about the appellate court’s unequivocal conclusion that Taus was not a limited public figure based on her consent to be the subject of a prominent medical study, and revealing her face and voice in publicly viewed materials.

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
California Supreme Court, 2005
35 Cal.4th 180, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 298, 106 P.3d 958

“The perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion.”

Vargas v. City of Salinas
California Supreme Court, 2009
46 Cal.4th 1, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 205 P.3d 207

The City of Salinas distributed a newsletter explaining Measure O, a contentious ballot measure that would phase out the city’s utility tax. Supporters of the ballot measure sued the city for expending public funds on the newsletter, claiming it was an impermissible election communication as defined by the Government Code.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s granting of defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, but based its conclusion on a different standard than the Court of Appeal. The Court clarified that government entities and public officials are entitled to anti-SLAPP protection. The Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that defendants’ conduct was unlawful and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment granting defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.
California Supreme Court, 2019
7 Cal.5th 871, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 444 P.3d 706

Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester
California Supreme Court, 2002
28 Cal.4th 811, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 19, 50 P.3d 733
Note:  Opinion overruled in part by Assembly Bill 1158 (2005), amending Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(b)(3).

The issue presented is whether, in an action for malicious prosecution, denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in the underlying action establishes that there was probable cause to support the action, thus precluding a suit for malicious prosecution. The court says it does when the denial is predicated on a finding that the action had potential merit.

Zamos v. Stroud California Supreme Court, 2004 32 Cal.4th 958, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802

The tort of malicious prosecution includes continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause. (This decision expands the tort, which previously was limited to commencing an action without probable cause.) Evidence to this effect is sufficient to defeat a special motion to strike a complaint for malicious prosecution.

source

 

SLAPP Cases Decided by the California Courts of Appeal

The following is a list of published SLAPP opinions decided by the California Courts of Appeal and a brief summary of some of them.   Clicking on the name of the case will lead to the text of the opinion.  For most opinions issued on or after April 3, 2013, clicking on the case name will lead to the text of the opinion on Google Scholar.

 

#

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg
(2003, 2d District – 107 Cal.App.4th 568, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 789)
Plaintiff sued Steinberg for business damages, alleging that Steinberg had colluded with plaintiff’s former employee to promote legislative action adverse to plaintiff’s business by facilitating meetings between the former employee and representatives of professional associations. The trial court granted Steinberg’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that the cause of action was conduct “in furtherance of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue” and plaintiff had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its complaint, including counts of inducing breach contract and inducing breach of fiduciary duties. The appellate court affirms.
569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc.
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 212Cal.Rptr.3d 304)
(modified 12-29-16)
1100 Park Lane Associates v. Feldman
(2008, 1st District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1467, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
1550 Laurel Owner’s Assn., Inc. v. Appellate Division of Superior Court
(2018, 2d District – 28 Cal.App.5th 1146, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 740)

A

Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP v. Lahiji
(2019, 2d District – 40 Cal.App.5th 882, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Abuemeira v. Stephens
(2016, 2d District – 246 Cal.App.4th 1291, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 437)
Albanese v. Menounos
(2013, 2d District – 218 Cal.App.4th 923, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 546)
Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management
(2022, B313842)
A.F. Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc.
(2006, 4th District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Aguilar v. Goldstein
(2012, 2d District – 207 Cal.App.4th 1152, 144 Cal.Rptr3d 238)
All One God Faith, Inc. v. Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards, Inc.
(2010, 1st District – 183 Cal.App.4th 1186, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 861)
Alpha & Omega Development, LP v. Whillock Contracting, Inc.
(2011, 4th District – 200 Cal.App.4th 656, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 781)
Alston v. Dawe
(2020, 4th District – 52 Cal.App.5th 706, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
American Humane Association v. Los Angeles Times Communications
(2001, 2d District – 92 Cal.App.4th 1095, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 488)
Plaintiff sought declaratory relief to prevent the LA Times from using a confidential internal report about conflicts of interest in the plaintiff organization. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. In the published portion of its opinion, the appellate court addresses the question of the timing of a request for attorney fees and costs
(2011, 4th District – 200 Cal. App. 4th 656)
Ampex Corp. v. Cargle
(2005, 1st District – 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 863)
Ampex sued an anonymous Internet poster for defamation and the poster responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. Once the poster was identified as Cargle, Ampex dismissed the suit and refiled the action in New York. The appellate court in an earlier opinion ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the anti-SLAPP motion even after dismissal. In this opinion the court holds that Cargle was the prevailing party in the trial court and was therefore entitled to attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Anderson v. Geist
(2015, 4th District – 236 Cal.App.4th 79, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 286)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC
(2015, 1st District – 234 Cal.App.4th 1270, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 759)
Annette F. v. Sharon S.
(2004, 4th District – 119 Cal.App.4th 1146, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 100)
This case arose from highly publicized and controversial litigation concerning the validity of “second-parent” adoptions. The parties were domestic partners. Sharon bore two children by artificial insemination during the relationship. Annette successfully petitioned the court to adopt the first child as a second parent. After the couple separated Annette filed a legal action to adopt the second child. Following that action, Annette sued Sharon for defamation arising from statements made by Sharon in a letter to an advocacy organization. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The trial court ruled that the action arose from constitutionally protected speech but concluded that Annette had established a probability of prevailing on her claim. The appellate court disagrees on the grounds that Annette is a public figure by virtue of the public controversy surrounding the adoption proceedings and cannot prove the actual malice required of public figures alleging defamation.
Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp
(2009, 2d District – 164 Cal.App.4th 1108, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 849)
Antounian v. Louis Vuitton Malletier
(2010, 2d District – 189 Cal.App.4th 438, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 3)
Applied Business Software, Inc. v. Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc.
(2008, 2d District – 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 371)
Area 51 Productions, Inc. v. City of Alameda
(2018, 1st District – 20 Cal.App.5th 581, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 165)
Area 55, LLC v. Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP
(2021, 4th District – 61 Cal.App.5th 136, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 519)
Aron v. WIB Holdings
(2/28/2018, 2d District – 21 Cal.App.5th 1069, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Argentieri v. Zuckerberg
(2017, 1st District – 8 Cal.App.5th 768, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 358)
Armin v. Riverside Community Hospital
(2016, 4th District – 5 Cal.App.5th 810, 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 388)
ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
(2006, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.4th 1170, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 62)
Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. L.A. Times Communs. LLC
(2015, 2d District – 239 Cal.App.4th 808, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 564)
Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn.
(2022, 1st District – 76 Cal.App.5th 1043, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 150)
Averill v. Superior Court
(1996, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 782)
Averill publicly criticized a plan by a charitable organization to convert a house in her neighborhood into a shelter for battered women. After she attempted to pursuade her employer not to contribute to the charity, the charity sued her for slander solely for her comments to her employer. The lower court’s denial of Averill’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court holds that comments made in private, if made in connection with a public issue, are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

B

Baharian-Mehr v. Smith
(2010, 4th District – 189 Cal.App.4th 265, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 153)
Bailey v. Brewer
(2011, 2d District – 197 Cal.App.4th 781, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380)
Balla v. Hall
(2021, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 652, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 695)
Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC
(2009, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 782)
Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 688)
Plaintiff filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Michael Larivee and the Quisenberry Law Firm. The trial court allowed Larivee to join in the Quisenberry Law Firm’s special motion to strike and granted the motion even though the hearing was held more than 30 days after service. Affirming the lower court’s ruling, the appellate court found the hearing to be timely and held that joinder to a special motion to strike is effective as long as the joining defendant demonstrates that the action arises out of protected First Amendment activity.
Barker v. Fox & Associates
(2015, 1st District – 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 511)
Baughn v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
(2016, 3d District – 246 Cal.App.4th 328, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 764)
Beach v. Harco National Insurance Co.
(2003, 3d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 82, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 454)
Plaintiff sued his insurer, alleging bad faith in handling his claim because of delay. The company filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that, because the claim was eventually submitted to arbitration, the company’s processing of the claim was an exercise of its right of petition under the First Amendment and therefore protected by both the anti-SLAPP statute and the “litigation privilege” (Civil Code § 47(b)). The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. According to the court, the cause of action lies in nonaction and delays, not in any specific statement or writing by the company, and none of this conduct involved the company’s right of petition. Moreover, “the fact that a dispute exists that might ultimately lead to arbitration does not make every step in that dispute part of a right to petition.”
Behunin v. Superior Court
(2017, 2d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 833, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 475)
Beilenson v. Superior Court
(1996, 2d District – 44 Cal.App.4th 944, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 357)
Beilenson defeated Sybert in an election for U.S. Congress. After the election Sybert sued Beilenson, a campaign worker, a consulting firm, and a campaign committee, alleging that Beilenson distributed libelous campaign literature. The lower court’s denial of Beilenson’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court holds that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements by candidates for public office and their supporters.
Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales
(2018, 2d District – 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 71)
Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLCJune 29, 2021
(2021, Second District – 65 Cal.App.5th 1145, 280 Cal.Rptr.3d 662)
Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 1179, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 621)
Benasra sued lawyers who represented his business rival while still representing him, alleging breach of duty of loyalty. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The court reverses, holding that the court’s earlier decision in Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp — that a claim for legal malpratice is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint — applies to a complaint alleging breach of attorney duty of loyalty.
Ben-Shahar v. Pickart
(2014, 2d District – 231 Cal.App.4th 1043, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 464)
Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 106 Cal.App.4th 978, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 364)
While Benitez was being treated for infertility at NCWCMG’s facility, she told her doctor she was a lesbian. Subsequently she encountered difficulties in receiving infertility treatment at NCWCMG. Benitez sued on a variety claims. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, on which the trial court did not rule. On appeal, Benitez argued that the motion is without merit and should be denied. The appellate court refuses to consider the issue on the grounds that there is no appealable order from the trial court.
Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios
(2013, 1st District – 218 Cal.App.4th 418, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 423)
Benton v. Benton
(2019, 4th District – 39 Cal.App.5th 212, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 118)
Bergman v. Drum
(2005, 2d District – 129 Cal.App.4th 11, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 112)
Bergman sued attorney Drum for malicious prosecution of a case against her, and in response Drum filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The motion was denied and then affirmed in an earlier appeal, in which the appellate court concluded that Bergman had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on her claim. Thereafter the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant. In this appeal the court holds that the doctrine of the law of the case precluded summary judgment for the defendant because summary judgement was inconsistent with the appellate court’s previous ruling concerning the anti-SLAPP motion.
Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
(2015, 2d District – 236 Cal.App.4th 793, 187 CAl.Rptr.3d 36)
Bernardo v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America
(2004, 4th District – 115 Cal.App.4th 322, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 197)
Plaintiffs sued Planned Parenthood under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), alleging that its websites contained “unlawful, unfair, confusing, and misleading statements” concerning abortion, and seeking injunctive relief. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted by the trial court after plaintiffs were unable to show a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claims for injunctive relief. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the state’s anti-SLAPP statute is unconstitutional on its face. The appellate court rejects all of plaintiffs’ arguments and affirms the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion.
Bernstein v. LaBeouf
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 15, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 173)
Bikkina v. Mahadevan
(2015, 1st District – 241 Cal.App.4th 70, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 499)
Birkner v. Lam
(2007, 1st District – 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190)
Blackburn v. Brady
(2004, 4th District – 116 Cal.App.4th 460, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 696)
Blackburn obtained an undivided one-half interest in property co-owned by Brady and his partner Lanser at public auction in partial satisfaction of a money judgment against Lanser. In this action for partition Blackburn also alleges fraud, that Brady and Lanser conspired to drive up the value of the land at auction. Brady filed a special motion to strike the complaint for fraud, arguing that his written bid and any oral statements made at the auction were made in connection with an official proceeding, i.e., Brady’s lawsuit against Lanser, and thus was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. The court agrees with existing case law that the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect every act having any connection, however remote, with an official proceeding. In order for statements or writings to be protected by the statute they must be made in connection with “an issue under consideration or review” in the proceeding.
Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc.
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 903, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
DIRECTV sent letters to thousands of people who purchased devices that can pirate DIRECTV’s television signals, demanding that the recipients cease using the devices. Several recipients of these demand letters filed a complaint against DIRECTV, alleging that the mailing of the demand letters was an unfair business practice (Business & Professions Code, § 17200). DIRECTV filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirms, holding that the provision of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute that excludes public interest lawsuits does not apply to the plaintiff-purchasers’ action, and DIRECTV is entitled to have the complaint stricken.
Bleavins v. Demarest
(2011, 2d District – 196 Cal. App. 4th 1533, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 580)
Blue v. Office of Inspector General
(2018, 3d District – 23 Cal.App.5th 138, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 590)
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2017, 4th District – 13 Cal.App.5th 851, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 598)
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2021, 4th District – 11 Cal.5th 995, 281 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678)
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2022, 4th District – 83 Cal. App. 5th 288, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730)
Booker v. Rountree
(2007, 4th District – 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 733)
Bowen v. Lin
(2022, 2d District – 80 Cal. App. 5th 155)
Bradbury v. Superior Court
(1996, 2d District – 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 207)
A deputy sheriff shot and killed a citizen during execution of a search warrant. Following an investigation by the district attorney, the deputy was exonerated. However, the DA’s public report of the investigation questioned the veracity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant. The deputy sued the district attorney for slander. The trial court’s denial of the district attorney’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. Held: the state’s anti-SLAPP statute applies to public employees who issue reports and comment on issues of public interest relating to their official duties. Moreover, public entities are “persons” for the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute and thus entitled to recover attorney fees when they prevail on a special motion to strike a complaint.
Branner v. Regents University of California
(2009, 1st District – 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 690)
Braun v. The Chronicle Publishing Co.
(1997, 1st District – 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 58)
Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2004, 4th District – 116 Cal.App.4th 679, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 702)
Brenton sued for product liability and other causes of tort action, alleging that she suffered a psychotic breakdown after using a Metabolife product. She also alleged that Metabolife’s false advertising and misbranding of the product violated the state’s unfair business practices statute (Business & Professions Code § 17200). Metabolife moved to strike the entire complaint as a SLAPP, arguing that Brenton’s complaint targeted protected commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. According to the court, the specific issue in this case is a recurring one: whether a claim against a manufacturer for physical injury, allegedly caused by use of its product, is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute merely because the manufacturer also engaged in commercial speech to market the product. The court rejects Metabolife’s argument that its labeling and advertising of the product are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because they constitute, in the statute’s terms, written statements made in a place open to the public in connection with an issue of public interest. In addition, the court holds that the newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 (effective Jan. 1, 2004) expressly removes Brenton’s complaint for unfair business practices from the anti-SLAPP statute’s protection. (Section 425.17 provides that the anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint cannot be applied to “any cause of action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, … arising from any statement or conduct by that person,” as long as certain conditions are met.) The court rejects Metabolife’s argument that section 425.17 is unconstitutional because it cannot withstand the strict scrutiny standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Publ. Serv. Comm’n (1980). (See also Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2003); Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc., 3d District Court of Appeal (2004).)
Briganti v. Chow
(2019, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.5th 504, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 909)
Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
(2021, 2nd District – 65 Cal.App.5th 99, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 518)
Brill Media Co., LLC v. TCW Group, Inc.
(2005, 2d District – 132 Cal.App.4th 324, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 371)
74 affiliated media companies sued defendant bond holders and their related entities for breach of contract and interference with economic relations, alleging defendants caused the default of and liquidation of plaintiffs’ entities by breaching confidentiality agreements and interfering with pending contracts. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed, concluding plaintiffs’ claims arose out of commercial speech and conduct and therefore fell under the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute. Judge Bosk dissented.
Britts v. Superior Court
(2006, 6th District -145 Cal.App.4th 1112, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 185)
Brodeur v. Atlas Entertainment, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 248 Cal.App.4th 665, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 483)
Brown v. Grimes
(2011, 2d District – 192 Cal.App.4th 265, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 893)
Burrill v. Nair
(2013, 3d District – 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 332)

C

C.W. Howe Partners Inc. v. Mooradian
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 688, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 806)
Cabral v. Martins
(2009, 1st District – 177 Cal.App.4th 471, 99 Cal. Rptr.3d 394)
California Back Specialists Medical Group v. Rand
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1032, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 268)
Callanan v. GRIZZLY DESIGNS, LLC
(June 29, 2022, C094008)
Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP  v. Cohen
(2011, 2d District – 195 Cal.App.4th 373, Cal.Rptr.3d)
Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp.
(2007, 2d District – 151 Cal.App.4th 454, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 839)
Carver v. Bonds
(2005, 1st District – 169 Cal.App.4th 328, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 480) 
Plaintiff podiatrist sued baseball player, reporters, and newspaper for defamation arising from statements in a newspaper article. Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions were granted; plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that stating facts and opinions about plaintiff was plainly “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of … [defendants’] constitutional right[s] of free speech” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4); and since the statements served as a warning against plaintiff’s method of self-promotion, and were provided along with other information to assist patients in choosing doctors, the statements involved a matter of public concern. Furthermore, because plaintiff could not prove falsity, and because some of the newspaper’s statements were privileged, he did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claims.
Castillo v. Pacheco
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 242, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 305)
Castleman v. Sagaser
(2013, 5th District – 216 Cal.App.4th 481, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 492)
Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc.
(2022, 1st District – 73 Cal.App.5th 764, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 773)
Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health
(2018, 1st District – 19 Cal.App.5th 203, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 848)
Century21 v. Haberman
(2009, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 249)
Chabak v. Monroy
(2007, 5th District – 140 Cal.App.4th 821, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 777)
Chaker v. Mateo
(2012, 4th District – 209 Cal.App.4th 1138, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 496)
Chambers v. Miller
(2006, 4th District – 94 Cal.App.4th 1083, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 825)
Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Peng Xufeng
(2020, 4th District – 57 Cal.App.5th 1, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 853)
Charney v. Standard General, L.P.
(2017, 2d District – 10 Cal.App.5th 149, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 889)
Chavez v. Mendoza
(2001, 4th District – 148 Cal.App.4th 71, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 600)
Mendoza sued an insurance company and its agents, Richard and Ina Chavez, asserting numerous contract and tort claims. All claims but one were dismissed. Subsequently the Chavezes sued Mendoza for malicious prosecution. Mendoza moved to strike the complaint as a SLAPP. The trial court ruled that a malicious prosecution complaint was not subject to the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court reversed the ruling, holding that a malicious prosecution complaint is subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. However, the court also concluded that the Chavezes had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their complaint and therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mendoza’s special motion to strike the complaint.
Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Assn.
(2018, 4th District – 27 Cal.App.5th 1202, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 792)
Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow
(2011, 2d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 910)
Cho v. Chang
(2013, 2d District – 219 Cal.App.4th 521, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 846)
Chodos v. Cole
(2012, 2d District – 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 451)
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (“Alnor I”)
(2007, 4th District – 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 866)
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (“Alnor II”)
(2008, 4th District – 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 866)
Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim
(1996, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 620)
The Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit seeking to vacate a multimillion dollar judgment against it, in favor of our client, Lawrence Wollersheim. This was part of extensive and drawn-out litigation (lasting 15 years) between Scientology and Wollersheim. The trial court granted Wollersheim’s anti-SLAPP motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action arising from any act in furtherance of the right of petition, such as Wollersheim’s original successful lawsuit, regardless of the subject matter. More than $428,000 in fees were awarded.
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Hass
(2020, 4th District – 46 Cal.App.5th 589, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 380)
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 117, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 501)
City of Alhambra v. D’Ausilio
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 1301, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 142)
City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments, LLC
(2013, 4th District – 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698)
City of Industry v. City of Fillmore
(2011, 2d District – 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 433)
City of Long Beach v. California Citizens for Neighborhood Empowerment
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 302, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 473)
City filed a civil complaint against CCNE, alleging violations of the municipal code concerning campaign contributions. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, holding that the “prosecutorial exemption” in the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to the complaint and the city had not demonstrated that it was likely to prevail on the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the prosecutorial exemption — “enforcement actions brought in the name of the people of the State of California” — applies to civil actions by cities enforcing municipal law. According to the court, the legislative history of the statute indicates a broader intent behind the exemption than is evident from the specific wording. (See also People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc., 1st District Court of Appeal, and People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar, 4th District Court of Appeal.)
City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 606, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 632)
The City of Los Angeles, on behalf of two of its employees, filed petitions seeking workplace violence protective orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 against animal rights activists. Defendants filed anti-SLAPP motions which the trial court denied, holding that the petitions were exempt as public entity enforcement actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(d).The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the exemption did not apply because the City filed the petitions as “employer” and not in its capacity as “public prosecutor” the petitions arose from protected free speech activity; and the City failed to demonstrate a probability it would prevail on its claims because (1) the protective orders under section 527.8 can only be brought against natural persons (not ADL), and (2) the City presented no evidence that individual defendant Ferdin conveyed a credible threat of violence in the workplace.
City of Riverside v. Stansbury
(2007, 4th District – 155 Cal.App.4th 1582, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 862)
City of San Diego v. Dunkl
(2001, 4th District – 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 269)
The City and the partnership that owns the San Diego Padres baseball team filed preemptive suits against proponents of a ballot initiative that would have made certain negative findings concerning an earlier city ordinance that authorized funds for construction of a downtown ballpark. Plaintiffs argued that the initiative was invalid and should not be placed on the ballot even if adequate signatures were obtained because the initiative sought to enact measures that were beyond the power of hte voters to adopt. Defendants filed a special motion to strike. The trial court granted summary judgment and ruled that in consequence the SLAPP motion was moot. The appellate court affirms. “Where . . . declaratory relief actions present purely legal questions about the validity of the subject matter of the lawsuits, . . . the SLAPP issue of whether the plaintiffs are more probably than not going to prevail in their actions may appropriately be determined by the use of related summary judgment proceedings.”
City of Santa Monica v. Stewart
(2005, 2d District – 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 72)
Several lawsuits were brought concerning enforcement of initiatives approved by voters in Santa Monica and Pasadena. The initiatives sought to prevent city officials from receiving certain advantages from persons or entities who benefited from decisions made by those officials. Pasadena officials refused to certify the initiative on the grounds that they believed it was unconstitutional. A Pasadena resident filed a petition for a writ of mandate to require the city to certify the initiative; the initiative’s sponsor was granted leave to intervene. The city filed a cross-complaint against the sponsor seeking a judicial declaration that the city had no duty to certify the initiative under the law. The sponsor filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the cause of action in the cross-complaint arose from protected First Amendment activity and the city was not able to demonstrate the required probability of succeeding on the cross-complaint.
CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Moore
(2008, 2d District – 159 Cal.App.4th 262, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 921)

Clarity Co. Consulting v. Gabriel
(2022, 2d District – 77 Cal.App.5th 454, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 532)

Clark v. Mazgani
(2009, 2d District – 170 Cal.App.4th 1280, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 24)
Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club
(2006, 1st District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1166, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 818)
Note! Opinion superseded by California Supreme Court’s granting of petition for review on June 21, 2006 (S143087).Plaintiffs filed suit against Sierra Club, alleging improper distribution of information during an election to the Club’s board of directors. The trial court granted Sierra Club’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reversed as to three causes of action which it found were exempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17(b) as a public interest action. It also found that one cause of action was not exempt under section 425.17(b) because the claim “seeks relief pertaining specifically to [two named directors] … [and] the gravamen of a cause of action seeking relief of such a personal kind does not satisfy the public interest criterion of the exemption of § 425.17.” The court found that the claim arose from acts protected by the First Amendment in connection with a public issue, and that the uncontested summary judgment in favor of defendant conclusively established that plaintiff had no probability of prevailing.
Cohen v. Brown
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 302, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 24)
Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC
(2012, 2d District – 206 Cal.App.4th 1095, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 646)
Collier v. Harris
(2015, 4th District – 240 Cal.App.4th 41, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 31)
Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista
(2021, 1st District – 61 Cal.App.5th 1039, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 895)
Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 109 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 245)
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Colt for “an illegal scheme to manipulate the price of four stocks.” Colt responded to the SEC action by stipulating to a consent decree. After Freedom Communications published stories about the SEC allegations, Colt sued for defamation and other damages. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, and the appellate court affirms. The court concluded that, because defendant is immune from liability for the articles under Civil Code section 47 and plaintiff had not offered credible evidence of actual malice, plaintiff had not established a probability of prevailing on the complaint as required by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Coltrain v. Shewalter
(2003, 4th District – 66 Cal.App.4th 94, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 600)
Our clients, the neighbors of an apartment complex, filed nuisance actions in small claims court against the owners of the complex, after unsuccessful attempts to abate alleged criminal activity and harassment by residents of the complex. In retaliation, the owners of the complex sued our clients for trade libel, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. After our clients filed an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs dismissed their complaint. The Court of Appeal found that our clients were targets of a SLAPP and were entitled to recover our attorneys fees, even though the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint.
Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes
(2017, 2d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 119, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 767)
Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 110 Cal.App.4th 26, 1 Cal.Rpr.3d 390)
Commonwealth Energy gave Investor Data a list of Commonwealth’s shareholders. After Investor Data used the list to market its services to the shareholders, Commonwealth sued for a variety of business-related causes of action. Investor Data filed an anti-SLAPP motion, denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirms. The court points out that, because the speech alleged to be the cause of action (Investor Data’s pitch to Commonwealth’s investors) did not occur within an official proceeding, the decision whether Investor Data’s statements are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute depends entirely on whether the statements were made in connection with a public issue (following the standard announced by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity). The court holds that a sales pitch for a commercial service does not qualify as a public issue for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. (See the earlier case, Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 1st District Court of Appeal.)
ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson
(2001, 4th District – 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 625)
After a failed attempt at merger between ComputerXpress and a business owned by defendants, defendants posted statements about ComputerXpress on the internet and filed a complaint against ComputerXpress with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). ComputerXpress sued, alleging in nine causes of action that defendants had conspired to damage its reputation and cause it economic harm. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that none of the causes of action fell under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court noted that the nine causes of action were based on three distinct sets of facts: (1) statements made in private business transactions, (2) the internet postings, and (3) the SEC complaint. The court concluded that statements made in the internet postings and SEC complaint fell under the anti-SLAPP statute, whereas the statements made in private business transactions did not. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the causes of action subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. In addition, the court ruled that defendants should be considered the prevailing party on the SLAPP motion, notwithstanding their partial success, and thus are entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred by the motion.
Comstock v. Aber
(2013, 1st District – 212 Cal.App.4th 931)
Lisa Aber filed a claim of sexual harassment and battery against her employer and two of its employees. One of those employees filed a cross-complaint against Aber, alleging claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted Aber’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the cross-complaint. The Court of Appeal affirmed. In its decision, the Court of Appeal held that Aber’s statements to the police, a nurse, and the employer’s HR manager were all protected under the anti-SLAPP law, as statements made in, or in connection with matters under review by, an official proceeding or body, and that the cross-complainant had not shown that his claims had any merit. Cross-complainant appealed the trial court’s award of $62,299.60 for Aber’s attorneys’ fees and costs, but that appeal was later dismissed.
Conroy v. Spitzer
(1999, 4th District – 70 Cal.App.4th 1446, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 443)
A candidate for public office sued his rival, alleging defamation in the rival’s campaign statements. The appellate court upholds the trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiff was a public figure and thus required to prove malice to prevail on a claim of defamation; he failed to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction a probability of prevailing on his claim, as required to defeat the special motion.
Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica International, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 107 Cal.App.4th 595, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 191)
Consumer and consumer advocate sued a manufacturer of herbal supplements, alleging false advertising and other causes of action for the company’s claim that its herbal supplement enlarged women’s breasts. The appellate court affirms the trial court’s denial of the company’s special motion to strike the complaint. Defendant had not shown that its commercial speech was protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute and in any event plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims.
Contemporary Services Corp. v. Staff Pro Inc.
(2007, 4th District – 152 Cal.App.4th 1043, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 434)
Contreras v. Dowling
(2016, 1st District – 5 Cal.App.5th 394, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)
Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
(2013, 4th District – 215 Cal.App.4th 1237, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 70)
Coretronic Corporation et al. v. Cozen O’Connor et al.
(2011, 2d District – 192 Cal.App.4th 1381, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 254
County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
(2016, 4th District – 246 Cal.App.4th 20, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 573)
Cross v. Cooper
(2011, 6th District – 197 Cal. App. 4th 357; 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 903)
Cross v. Facebook, Inc.
(2017, 1st District – 14 Cal.App.5th 190, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 250)
Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Federal National Mortgage Association
(2017, 3d District – 13 Cal.App.5th 757, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Cruz v. City of Culver City
(2016, 2d District – 2 Cal.App.5th 239, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 736)
Cuevas-Martinez v. Sun Salt Sand, Inc.
(2019, 4th District – 35 Cal.App.5th 1109, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 200)Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Pacific Dredge & Construction, LLC
(2022, 4th District – 76 Cal.App.5th 651, 291 Cal.Rptr.3d 639)

D

D’Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America
(2014, 6th District – 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 171)
D.C. v. R.R.
(2010, 2d District – 182 Cal.App.4th 1190, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 399)
Dae v. Traver
(2021, 2nd District, Division 2 – 69 Cal.App.5th 447, 284 Cal.Rptr.3d 495)
Daimler Chrysler Motors Co. v. Lew Williams, Inc.
(2006, 3d District – 142 Cal.App.4th 344, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 233)
Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club
(2000, 4th District – 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 205)
The appellate court upholds the trials court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint. Held: The anti-SLAPP statutes applies to allegedly defamatory statements made at meetings of a homeowners association and in the association’s newsletter because both forums were open to the public and the defendants’ statements “concerned the manner in which a large residential community would be governed.”
Daniel v. Wayans
(2017, 2d District – 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 213Cal.Rptr.3d 865)
Daniels v. Robbins
(2010, 4th District – 182 Cal.App.4th 204, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 223)
Dean v. Friends of Pine Meadow
(2018, 1st District – ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 865)
DeCambre v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 1, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 888)
(modification, 4-2-15)
Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 892)
Note:  Opinion overruled by Assembly Bill 1158 (2005), amending Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
UDR is a consumer reporting agency that gathers and sells information about unlawful detainer cases. Several tenants, after unsuccessfully attempting to have UDR amend information about them in UDR’s records, sued UDR, alleging negligence, defamation, and other acts. The trial court denied UDR’s anti-SLAPP motions to strike the complaints, finding that the motions were frivolous. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that UDR’s motions did not meet the requirement in the anti-SLAPP statute for notice of a hearing no later than 30 days after service of the motion. (See also Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002).)
de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC
(2018, 2d District – 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 625)
Delois v. Barrett Block Partners
(2009, 1st District – 177 Cal.App.4th 940, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 609)
Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc
(2014, 2d District – 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 131)
Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 1273, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 349)
Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics
(2009,1st District – 170 Cal.App.4th 843, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 464)
Dickens v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
(2004, 2d District – 117 Cal.App.4th 705, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 877)
Dickens was charged in criminal court with defrauding Provident by submitting false claims that he was disabled. Dickens was acquitted by a jury. He then sued Provident, alleging malicious prosecution and other causes of action. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms, holding that a malicious prosecution claim based on termination of a criminal prosecution in plaintiff’s favor is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. The court concludes that Dickens failed to establish a prima facie case of liability for malicious prosecution because he offered no evidence that defendant was instrumental in the criminal prosecution against Dickens.
Dickinson v. Cosby I
(2017, 2d District – 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 430)
Dickinson v. Cosby II
(2019, 2d District – 37 Cal.App.5th 1138, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 350)
Digerati Holdings, LLC v. Young Money Entertainment, LLC
(2011, 2d District- 194 Cal.App.4th 873, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 736)
Direct Shopping Network, LLC v. James
(2012, 2d District – 206 Cal.App.4th 1551, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Dixon v. Superior Court
(1994, 4th District – 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 687)
Surveyor brought an action against a university professor, alleging interference with economic relationships, libel, slander, and trade libel arising from statements critical of the surveyor’s report regarding a proposed development at the university. The statements were made during the public review period following issuance of a negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The lower court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed.
Doe v. Luster
(2006, 2d District – 145 Cal.App.4th 139, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 403)
Doe v. McLaughlin
(September 21, 2022, No. A161534)
Doe v. State of California
(2017, 4th District – 8 Cal.App.5th 832, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 391)
John Doe 2 v. Superior Court
(2016, 2d District – 1 Cal.App.5th 1300, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 60)
Donovan v. Dan Murphy Foundation
(2012, 2d District – 204 Cal.App.4th 1500, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 71)
Dorit v. Noe
(2020, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.5th 458, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 98)
Dougherty v. Haag
(2008, 4th District – 165 Cal.App.4th 315, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
(1996, 2d District – 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830)
A recording company sued a law firm for defamation for alleging the company had failed to pay royalties to charities designated by celebrities who had made a recording. The lower court’s granting of the defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed. The law firm’s letter to celebrities who had participated in the recording is protected from defamation liability under Civil Code section 47 as a communication preliminary to an official proceeding. Defendants’ appellate attorney fees are recoverable as part of attorney fees authorized by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Dowling v. Zimmerman
(2001, 4th District – 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174)
Landlord sued attorney who represented tenants in unlawful detainer action for defamation, misrepresentation, and infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court affirms the trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaints. The anti-SLAPP statute applies because the cause of action is statements made in connection with a pending unlawful detainer action, statements that arguably involved public issues of nuisance and safety (defendant stated that someone had twice entered a locked garage and turned off the dial of the tenants’ water heater). Plaintiff’s complaint was pleaded without the requisite specificity and defendant’s statements were privileged under Civil Code section 47(b). The court of appeal also stated that the provision in the anti-SLAPP law for attorney fees must be construed broadly, that a pro per defendant could collect fees under anti-SLAPP law for assistance from retained anti-SLAPP counsel, and that defendant could proceed to collect fee award even though plaintiff had appealed it, unless plaintiff posted a bond.
Drell v. Cohen
(2014, 2d District – 232 Cal.App.4th 24, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 191)
Drum v. Bleau, Fox & Associates
(2003, 2d District – 107 Cal.App.4th 1009, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 602)
Bleau Fox, a law firm, won a legal malpractice action against Drum and his law firm in a jury trial. Although the judge stayed the judgment pending notice of appeal, Bleau Fox immediately filed a levy against Drum’s bank account. Drum then filed a complaint against Bleau Fox for abuse of process. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that Drum had established a prima facie case and the action is not barred by the litigation privilege (Civil Code section 47(b)).
Drummond v. Desmarais
(2009, 6th District – 176 Cal.App.4th 439, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 394)
Du Charme v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 45
(2003, 1st District – 110 Cal.App.4th 107, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 501)
After he was terminated as assistant business manager for a union, the union’s trustee posted a statement on the Internet that Du Charme had been fired for “financial mismanagement”. Du Charme sued the trustee and the union on a variety of complaints. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied on the grounds that the statement posted on the Internet was not made in connection with any official proceeding and did not concern a public issue, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms, emphasizing that a statement must concern an issue of widespread public interest to qualify for protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. “[M]ere publication … should not turn otherwise private information … into a matter of public interest.”
Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. v. Buschel
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1098, 212 Cal Rptr 3d 75)
Dunning v. Clews
(2021, 4th District – 64 Cal.App.5th 156, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 607)
Dunning v. Johnson
(April 23, 2021, D076570)
DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court
(2000, 4th District – 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755)
A class action was filed against DuPont, claiming damages on behalf of purchasers of a drug manufactured by DuPont and alleging that DuPont made false statements before regulatory bodies, the medical profession, and the public regarding the drug. DuPont filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The motion was denied by the trial court. The appellate court determined that the remarks complained of were “acts in furtherance of the person’s [DuPont’s] right of petition or free speech” protected by the anti-SLAPP statute and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff could demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, as required by the statute. (See also Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.)
Dwight R. v. Christy B.
(2013, 4th District – 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 406)
Dyer v. Childress
(2007, 2d District – 147 Cal.App.4th 1273, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 544)
Dziubla v. Piazza
(2020, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 140, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 297)

E

Edward v. Ellis
(December 14, 2021, G059523)

Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC
(2014, 3d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 490)
Endres v. Moran
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 786)
Plaintiffs sued, claiming defendants had committed various torts as part of a wrongful attempt to control a church. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted for only one of the eleven causes of action (for conspiracy). The trial court denied defendants’ motion for attorneys fees and defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the results of the anti-SLAPP motion were so minimal and insignificant that the case remained essentially the same, and the defendants were not prevailing parties, justifying the lower court’s ruling that defendants should not recover fees.
Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. C.S.I. Telecommunications Engineers
(1996, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.4th 1591, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 491)
Note:  Opinon disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.Ericsson sued a consultant who recommended another company’s proposal to supply and install a communications system for Ventura County, alleging that the consultant intentionally misrepresented the merits of Ericsson’s proposal. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court concludes that the consultant’s report was prepared in fulfillment of a contract, not for the purpose of speaking out on a public issue (expenditure of public funds).
Evans v. Unkow
(1995, 1st District – 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 624)
A former public official sued individuals who had filed a notice of petition to recall him from office, alleging that statements made in the notice were defamatory. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action, and held that evidence opposing a special motion to strike a complaint must be admissible and declarations may generally not be based on information or belief.

F

Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Rights Coalition, Inc.
(2004, 3d District – 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 157)
Note: Opinion overruled by Assembly Bill 1158 (2005), amending Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion because it was not heard within 30 days after service of the motion and defendants did not establish that the court’s docket conditions required a later hearing, as required by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms.
Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP
(2022, 4th District – 74 Cal.App.5th 506, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 521)
Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
(2004, 2d District – 117 Cal.App.4th 1138, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 493)
A seller of women’s apparel filed an action for defamation against the Coalition, a nonprofit organization, alleging that defendants falsely claimed it was responsible for “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in unpaid wages due its workers. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that Fashion 21 had established a probability of prevailing on its complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of proving the falsity of defendants’ statements about unpaid wages. See companion case Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court.
FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc.
(2017, 2d District – 13 Cal.App.5th 707, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 539)
Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates
(2021, 2nd District – 68 Cal.App.5th 136, 283Cal.Rptr.3d 22)
Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC
(2015, 4th District – 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino
(2001, 2d District – 89 Cal.App.4th 294, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 906)
After learning that Paladino planned to sue Fox for wrongful termination, Fox sued Paladino, its former in-house counsel, alleging disclosure of confidential and privileged information. The trial court denied Paladino’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Fox could not show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits inasmuch as an in-house counsel could disclose ostensible employer-client confidences to his own attorneys in the preparation of a suit for wrongful termination by the employer.
Freeman v. Schack
(2007, 4th District – 154 Cal.App.4th 719, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 867)
Freemont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin
(2011, 2d District – 198 Cal.App.4th 1153, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 478)
FRYM v. 601 MAIN STREET LLC
(2022, 1st District – 82 Cal. App. 5th 613)

G

Gallagher v. Connell
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 1260, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 673)
Evidence that is normally inadmissible may, if no objections are raised, be considered by the court in determining whether a plaintiff challenged by an anti-SLAPP motion has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the complaint.
Gallanis-Politis v. Medina
(2007, 2d District – 152 Cal.App.4th 600, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 701)
Gallano v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC
(2021, 1st District – 67 Cal.App.5th 953, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 748)
Gallant v. City of Carson
(2005, 2d District – 128 Cal.App.4th 705, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 318)
Gallant alleged she was terminated as general manager of the city after she reported misdeeds of a city attorney and that, prior to her termination, employees of the city had made public defamatory remarks about her competency as general manager. She sued the city for defamation and wrongful termination. City filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint for defamation, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that Gallant had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on her claim.
Gallimore v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
(2002, 2d District – 102 Cal.App.4th 1388, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 560)
Gallimore sought damages from State Farm for alleged misconduct in handling his claims. The company filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that Gallimore’s allegations were based on reports that the company had filed with the state’s Department of Insurance. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the lower court, and State Farm, had confused allegations of wrongdoing with the evidence required to prove them.
Garcia v. Rosenberg
(2019, 5th District – 42 Cal.App.5th 1050, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 377)
The Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court
(2004, 2d District – 117 Cal.App.4th 1156, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 506)
In this companion case to Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the appellate court considered whether the trial court had “good cause” to lift the stay on discovery required when an anti-SLAPP motion is filed. Before hearing defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiffs’ libel claim, the trial court permitted plaintiffs to conduct discovery on the issue of actual malice. The appellate court concludes that the trial court absued its discretion in allowing discovery on actual malice before first determining whether plaintiffs had a reasonable probability of establishing the other elements of libel.
Garretson v. Post
(2007, 4th District – 156 Cal.App.4th 1508, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 230)
Gaynor v. Bulen
(2018, 4th District – 19 Cal.App.5th 864, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 243)
GeneThera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould Professional Corp.
(2009, 2d District – 171 Cal.App.4th 901, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 218)
Gerbosi et al. v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 73)
GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs
(2013, 2d District – 220 Cal.App.4th 141, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 831)
Ghafur v. Bernstein
(2005, 1st District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1230, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 626)
Defendants wrote a letter to the state superintendent of education concerning Ghafur and the charter schools he managed. The letter urged an investigation of religious instruction in the schools and a link to an Islamic terrorist organization. Ghafur sued defendants for defamation. The trial court granted defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that Ghafur was unlikely to prevail on his complaint. Ghafur, as a public official, was required to proffer clear and convincing evidence that defendants acted with malice and he had not.
Gilbert v. Sykes
(2007, 3d District – 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 752)
Golden Eagle Land Investment, L.P. v. Rancho Santa Fe Association
(2018, 4th District – 19 Cal.App.5th 399, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 903)

Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC et al. v. Direct Action Everywhere
(2022, 1st District – 81 Cal.App.5th 82, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 768)

Golden State Seafood, Inc. v. Schloss
(2020, 2d District – 53 Cal.App.5th 21, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 608)
Goldstein v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
(2004, 2d District – 122 Cal.App.4th 229, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 292)
In a class action Ralphs Grocery filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was denied by the trial court on the grounds that the various causes of action did not arise from conduct protected by the First Amendment, and in any case class actions are exempt from the special motion to strike under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. Defendant filed a writ petition, which was summarily denied. It then filed a notice of appeal. The court dismisses the appeal. Held: When a special motion to strike is denied on the grounds the cause of action is exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute procedures, the right of immediate appeal under the statute is inapplicable.
Gotterba v. Travolta
(2014, 2d District – 228 Cal.App.4th 35, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 131)
The Governor Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers Alliance
(2002, 1st District – 102 Cal.App.4th 449, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 534)
The Taxpayers Alliance paid for a television ad critical of Davis. After the ad was broadcast, the Davis Committee sued for injunctive relief, seeking to compel the Alliance to comply with disclosure and reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act of 1974. The Alliance filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, which was denied by the trial court. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the financing of the TV ad was activity protected by the First Amendment and the Davis Committee was not likely to succeed in its bid to compel the Alliance to comply with the Political Reform Act. The court distinguishes this case from Paul for Council v. Hanyecz.
Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera
(2010, 2d District – 181 Cal.App.4th 1207, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 692)
Greco v. Greco
(2016, 3d District – 2 Cal.App.5th 810, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 501)
Greka Integrated, Inc. v. Lowrey
(2005, 2d District – 133 Cal.App.4th 1572, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 684)
Greka Integrated, Inc. sued a former employee for breach of contract and conversion. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion and the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court held that where a party expressly consents to an untimely hearing date, he has thereafter waived his right to object thereto. The court found that defendant’s statements were covered by the anti-SLAPP law because they were made to his counsel, to authorities, in deposition, and in trial testimony. The court also found that Greka presented no evidence that defendant disclosed proprietary or confidential information or that defendant’s possession of the information was wrongful.
Grenier v. Taylor
(2015, 5th District – 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 867)
Grewal v. Jammu
(2011, 1st District – 191 Cal.App.4th 977, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 835)
Gruber v. Gruber
(2020, 2d District – 48 Cal.App.5th 529, 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 819)
Guarino v. County of Siskiyou
(3/1/2018, 3d District – 21 Cal.App.5th 1170, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 95)
Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
(2009, 2d District – 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 214)

H

Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures
(2010, 1st District – 184 Cal.App.4th 1539, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 129)
Hailstone v. Martinez
(2009, 5th District – 169 Cal.App.4th 728, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 798)
Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.
(2007, 2d District – 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 347)
Haneline Pacific Properties, LLC v. May
(2008, 4th District – 167 Cal.App.4th 311, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 919)
Hansen v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(2008, 5th District – 171 Cal.4th 1537, 90 Cal. Rptr.3d 381)
Hardin v. PDX, Inc.
(2014, 1st District – 227 Cal.App.4th 159, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 397)
Hart v. Darwish
(2017, 2d District – 12 Cal.App.5th 218, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 757)
Hawran v. Hixson
(2012, 4th District –  209 Cal.App.4th 256, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88)
Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. v. Kabateck
(2016, 2d District – 7 Cal.App.5th 416, 212Cal.Rptr.3d 589)
Healy v. Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp.
(2006, 4th District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 547)
Plaintiff homeowner sued defendant homeowners association for allegedly defamatory statements defendant’s attorneys made in a letter which it sent out to residents of Tuscany Hills regarding a legal dispute over access through plaintiff’s property. The trial court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that the letter was protected by the litigation privilege and thus plaintiff could not prevail.
Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization
(2012, District – 203 Cal.App.4th 450)
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp.
(2015, 6th District – 239 Cal.App.4th 1174, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 807)
Hicks v. Richard
(2019, 4th District – 39 Cal.App.5th 1167, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 578)
HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co.
(2004, 2d District – 118 Cal.App.4th 204, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 786)
The parties had had a business relationship for a brief period. After the relationship was ended, Lawyers Title sued HMS to recover fees allegedly owed it. Judgment was entered by stipulation. HMS then filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Lawyers Title. Defendant’s special (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the complaint was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that HMS had met its burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on it malicious prosecution lawsuit by making a prima facie showing that Lawyers Title acted with the intent to deliberately misuse the legal system for personal gain or satisfaction at HMS’s expense.
Holbrook v. City of Santa Monica
(2006, 2d District – 144 Cal.App.4th 1247, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 181)
Hui v. Sturbaum
(2014, 1st District – 222 Cal.App.4th 1109, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 569)
Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
(2013, 2d District – 221 Cal.App.4th 1510, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 123)
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.
(2005, 4th District – 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 521)
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. (HLS) and its employee Claire Macdonald sued defendant animal rights activists for trespass, harassment, and related causes of action arising from protests which occurred outside plaintiff Macdonald’s home. Defendants appealed an order denying their anti-SLAPP motion.The appellate court affirmed the denial as to some but not all causes of actions. The court held that the anti-SLAPP statute applied because the gravamen of the action against defendants was based on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and that mere allegations that defendants acted illegally did not render the anti-SLAPP statute inapplicable. As to the probability of plaintiffs’ prevailing on the merits, the court held that collateral estoppel based on the granting of a preliminary injunction was inapplicable to an anti-SLAPP motion because the issues were not identical. It granted the motion to strike the causes of action for trespass and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage because plaintiffs produced insufficient evidence. It also granted the motion to strike plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because plaintiff failed to show duty. The court affirmed the denial as to the causes of action for harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and Macdonald’s individual unfair competition claim because plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing.
Hupp v. Freedom Communications, Inc.
(2013, 4th District – 221 Cal.App.4th 398, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 919)
Hutton v. Hafif
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 527, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 109)
Hylton v. Rogozienski, Inc.
(2009, 4th District – 177 Cal.App.4th 1264, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 805)

I-J

In re Marriage of Benner
(2019, 4th District – 36 Cal.App.5th 177, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 906)
Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy
(2016, 1st District – 4 Cal.App.5th 1135, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 853)
Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc.
(2005, 2d District – 129 Cal.App.4th 1050, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 933)
Inland Oversight Comm. v. County of San Bernardino
(2015, 4th District – 239 Cal.App.4th 671, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 384)
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. v. Fitzgibbons
(2006, 4th District – 140 Cal.App.4th 515, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 517)
Plaintiff holding company sued defendant for defamation and other causes of action arising out of an email message in which defendant questioned plaintiff’s financial condition with regard to its purchase and operation of four hospitals. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reversed, finding the email message concerned an issue of public interest, and plaintiff failed to show a probability of prevailing on its claims because it failed to show falsity or any waiver of defendant’s First Amendment rights.
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39 v. Macys Inc.
(2022, 1st District – 83 Cal. App. 5th 985)Issa v. Applegate
(2019, 4th District – 31 Cal.App.5th 689, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 809)
Jackson v. Mayweather
(2017, 2d District – 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 234)
Jackson v. Yarbray
(2009, 2d District – 179 Cal.App.4th 75, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 303)
JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2016, 4th District – 1 Cal.App.5th 984, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 307)
Jay v. Mahaffey
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 700)
Jeffra v. California State Lottery
(2019, 2d District – 39 Cal.App.5th 471, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 873)
Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC v. Latin World Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
(2019, 2d District – 36 Cal.App.5th 766, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 122)
Jeppson v. Ley
(2020, 2d District – 44 Cal.App.5th 845, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 921)
Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp
(2003, 2d District – 114 Cal.App.4th 624, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 715)
Attorneys sued for litigation-related malpractice filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the malpractice action was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Held: the suit does not arise out of the attorneys’ First Amendment right to petition but rather from negligent failure to protect a client’s legal rights.)
Jewett v. Capital One Bank
(2003, 2d District – 113 Cal.App.4th 805, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 675)
Jewett filed a class action complaint against the bank, alleging that the bank’s mailed offers of lines of credit constituted deceptive and unfair business practice. The bank moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that its mass solicitations were protected speech involving a public issue or an issue of public interest. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses, holding that credit card solicitations do not qualify for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute. “[T]o extend the protection of section 425.16 [of the Civil Code] to credit card solicitations would subvert the intent of the Legislature in enacting section 425.16….”
JKC3H8 v. Colton
(2013, 3d District – 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 450)
J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP
(2016, 2d District – 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 782)
Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price
(2010, 2d District – 183 Cal.App.4th 559, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 539)
Johnson v. Ralphs Grocery Co
(2012, 4th District – 204 Cal.App.4th 1097, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 396)
Johnston v. Corrigan
(2005, 2d District – 127 Cal.App.4th 553, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 657)
The trial court denied a motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Subsequently it granted a motion for reconsideration and then awarded attorney fees. At issue on appeal is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider its initial order. The appellate court concludes that it did.
JSJ Limited Partnership v. Mehrban
(2012, 4th District – 205 Cal.App.4th 1512)

K

Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(2002, 2d District – 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 187)
Kajima sued the City for payment for work and the City cross-complained of breach of contract. Kajima moved to strike the cross-complaint as a SLAPP; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirms the denial. The court concludes that the allegations in the City’s cross-complaint arose from Kajima’s bidding and contracting practices, not from “acts in furtherance of its right of petition or free speech.” The court states: “We publish this opinion … to emphasize that a cross-complaint or independent lawsuit filed in response to, or in retaliation for, threatened or actual litigation is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute simply because it may be viewed as an oppressive litigation tactic. No lawsuit is properly subject to a special motion to strike under section 425.16 unless its allegations arise from acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech.”
Karnazes v. Ares
(2016, 2d District – 244 Cal.App.4th 344, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 155)
(modified 2-26-16)
Kashian v. Harriman
(2002, 5th District -98 Cal.App.4th 892, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 576)
Kashian was chairman of the board of trustees of a nonprofit community hospital, which planned to build a for-profit hospital in partnership with several physicians. Harriman, a public-interest lawyer, wrote a letter to the state attorney general asking for an investigation of the hospital’s tax-exempt status, alleging that Kashian had a pecuniary interest in certain of the hospital’s transactions. Kashian sued Harriman for defamation and unfair business practices; the latter complaint was based on the allegation that Harriman was engaged in the practice of litigation designed to “extort settlements” that benefitted Harriman. The trial court granted Harriman’s special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Its lengthy opinion is devoted in large part to a discussion of whether the immunity from liability under Civil Code section 47 (the “litigation privilege”) applies to allegations of violations of the state’s “unfair business practice” statute (Business & Professions Code section 17200).

Keading v. Keading
(2021,1st District – 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 338)

Kemps v. Beshwate
(2009, 5th District – 180 Cal.App.4th 1012, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 480)
Kenne v. Stennis
(2014, 2d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 953, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 198)
Kettler v. Gould
(2018, 2d District – 22 Cal.App.5th 593, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 580)
Key v. Tyler
(2019, 2d District – 34 Cal.App.5th 505, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 224)
Kieu Hoang v. Phong Minh Tran
(2021, 2d District – 60 Cal.App.5th 513, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 567)
Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
(2021, ourth District – 67 Cal.App.5th 263, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 918)
Kinsella v. Kinsella
(2020, 4th District – 45 Cal.App.5th 442, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 725)
Km v. Access Insurance Company
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 595, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 711)
Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky LLP
(2013, 4th District – 215 Cal.App.4th 534, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 599)
Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton
(2006, 4th District – 145 Cal.App.4th 1532, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 712)
Kreeger v. Wanland
(2006, 3d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 779)
Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Data Base, Inc.
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 941, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 48)
Kunysz v. Sandler
(2007, 4th District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 779)
Kurwa v. Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP
(2007, 2d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 841, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 256)
Kurz v. Syrus Systems, LLC
(2013, 6th District – 221 Cal.App.4th 748, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 554)
Kyle v. Carmon
(1999, 3d District – 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 303)
Plaintiff school superintendent dismissed his complaint with prejudice against our client, Shelly Carmon, after we filed an anti-SLAPP motion but before the court had ruled on the motion. The trial court issued an order granting the motion to strike and awarding attorneys fees and costs. The Court of appeal held that the trial court’s adjudication of the merits of the motion supported affirmance of the award of attorney’s fees and costs.

L

L.A. Taxi Coop. v. Indep. Taxi Owners Ass’n of L.A.
(2015, 2d District – 239 Cal.App.4th 918, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 579)
L.G. v. M.B.
(2018, 2d District – 25 Cal.App.5th 211, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 494)
La Jolla Group II v. Bruce
(2012, 5th District – 211 Cal.App.4th 461, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 716)
Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co. (“Morehouse I”)
(1995, 1st District – 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46)
A university offering a Ph.D. in “sensuality” sued a newspaper for libel for a series of articles on the university in relation to hearings by the county board of supervisors on whether the university was violating local health, land use, and other government regulations, and a suit by the county to enjoin alleged violations. The lower court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co. (“Morehouse II”)
(1995, 1st District – 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 542)
A defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike a complaint is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs only for work related to the motion, not for work unrelated to the motion. [Note: This opinion was issued before the 1997 amendment of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, requiring that the anti-SLAPP statute be construed broadly, and before the Supreme Court decision in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, which held that courts, “wherever possible, should interpret the First Amendment in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom of speech, not to its curtailment.”]
Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University
(2019, 6th District – 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 244 Cal.Rptr.3d 238)
Lam v. Ngo
(2001, 4th District – 91 Cal.App.4th 832, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 582)
Vietnamese-Americans demonstrated against the display of North Vietnam’s flag in a store window. One group focused attention on a city councilman, Lam, who was perceived to be indifferent. Lam owned a restaurant, where demonstrators gathered. After the restaurant’s landlord, Ngo, allowed the demonstrators to gather in the parking lot, restaurant and patron property was intentionally damaged. Lam sued Ngo and 1,500 “Doe” demonstrators for damages and obtained a TRO, later a preliminary injunction, against the demonstrators. Ngo filed a motion to strike the complaint against him pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Ngo had already lost in the contest over the preliminary injunction and had not presented anything “new.” The appellate court reverses. Held: the granting of the preliminary injunction did not have the effect of res judicata with respect to the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Moreover, Lam could not be held personally liable for acts committed by others absent evidence that he authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious acts, incited lawless action, or gave specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats, and no such evidence was presented to counter the anti-SLAPP motion. Nevertheless, violent acts associated with the protest are not protected by the First Amendment and do support tort liability, and thus the case is remanded to allow the plaintiff to substitute named individuals who can be shown to have engaged in tortious acts.
Lanz v. Goldstone
(2015, 1st District – 243 Cal.App.4th 441, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 227)
Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang
(2009, 2d District – 178 Cal.App,4th 869, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 771)
Lee v. Fick
(2005, 2d District -135 Cal.App.4th 89, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 375)
Plaintiff high school athletic coach filed a lawsuit for libel, slander, and other causes of action for statements defendant parents made in a letter to the school board, oral statements defendants made to other parents, and oral statements made to the school board while requesting that it reconsider its decision to retain the coach. The trial court granted defendants anti-SLAPP motion for the libel cause of action, finding that the letter was written to prompt official action and was privileged under Civil Code section 47(b). However it denied the motion to strike the remaining causes of action.
The appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion to strike the libel claim, but reversed the trial court’s denial as to the other claims, holding that defendants’ oral comments to school officials, interested parties (other parents), and the school board were all privileged.
Lee v. Kim
(2019, 2d District – 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 546)
Lee v. Silveira
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 705)
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Diaz
(2005, 2d District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1517, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 139)
Leegin brought an action for fraud against Diaz, an employee, alleging that Diaz had knowingly filed a fraudulent worker’s compensation claim. The trial court granted Diaz’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that Leegin is not likely to prevail on its claim.
Lefebvre v. Lefebvre
(2011, 2d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 696, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 171)
Lennar Homes of California, Inc. v. Stephens
(2015, 4th District – 232 Cal.App.4th 673, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 638)
Levy v. City of Santa Monica
(2004, 2d District – 114 Cal.App.4th 1252, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 507)
After the Levys constructed a backyard playhouse, a neighbor complained to her city councillor, who inquired of planning department officials whether the construction conformed to regulations. Eventually a city employee notified the Levys that the playhouse was an unapproved structure and had to be removed or modified. The Levys sued the city and the councillor for violation of a city ordinance prohibiting councillors from giving orders to any subordinate of the city manager. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied on the grounds that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply. The appellate court reverses, holding that the city councillor’s communication to the planning department was advocacy protected by the First Amendment, not an order, and therefore covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Li v. Jin
(2022, 6th District – 83 Cal.App.5th 481, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 717)
Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc.
(2003, 2d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 536)
KCOP secretly recorded private consultations between Lieberman, a physician, and reporters posing as patients. The recordings were broadcast by KCOP to support allegations that Lieberman was improperly prescribing controlled drugs. Lieberman sued KCOP for violation of Penal Code section 632, which prohibits electronic eavesdropping on a confidential communication without consent of all parties and provides for monetary damages. The trial court denied KCOP’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, finding that Lieberman had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation of section 632. The trial court affirms. The court concludes that the secret recording was an act in furtherance of free speech inasmuch as the recording was incorporated into a news report, and therefore plaintiff’s cause of action is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Nevertheless, plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on his complaint since (1) a section 632 violation occurs the moment a confidential communication is secretly recorded, regardless of whether it is subsequently disclosed, and (2) there is no affirmative defense in the fact that the secret recording was part of legitimate newsgathering.
Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc.
(2008, 1st District – 163 Cal.App.4th 620, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)
Lin v. City of Pleasanton
(2009, 1st District – 175 Cal.App.4th 1143, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 730)
Linsco/Private Ledger, Inc. v. Investors Arbitration Services, Inc.
(1996, 1st District – 50 Cal.App.4th 1633, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 613)
Note: This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
Securities broker-dealers sought to enjoin the “unauthorized practice of law” by companies that represent individual investors in arbitration proceedings with brokers. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that disputes over individual investment losses are not matters of public concern and therefore the brokers’ complaint was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statue.
Litinsky v. Kaplan
(2019, 2d District – 40 Cal.App.5th 970, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 62)
Liu v. Moore
(1999, 2d District – 69 Cal.App.4th 745, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 807)
A SLAPP plaintiff cannot avoid liability for defendant’s attorney’s fees by dismissing its complaint prior to the hearing on defendant’s motion to strike the complaint. The court must still decide the merits of the motion to strike in order to determine whether the defendant is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to fees.
Lockton v. O’Rourke
(2010, 2d District – 184 Cal.App.4th 1051, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 392)
Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 675, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 220)
Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht
(2015, 1st District – 235 Cal.App.4th 496, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
Long Beach Unified School Dist. v. Margaret Williams, LLC
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 87, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 354)
Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee
(2013, 1st District – 213 Cal.App.4th 635, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 641)
Ludwig v. Superior Court
(1995, 4th District -37 Cal.App.4th 8, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 350)
City, hoping to develop a shopping mall, sued a competing developer for interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition, alleging that the developer encouraged citizens to speak out at public meetings and file law suits against the city’s proposed mall. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed.
Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez
(2015, 2d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 784)

M

M.F. Farming Co. v. Couch Distributing Co., Inc.
(2012, 6th District – 207 Cal.App.4th 180, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 160)
M.G., a minor, v. Time Warner, Inc.
(2001, 4th District – 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504)
An article in Sports Illustrated about adult coaches who sexually molest youths included a photograph of a Little League team, five players of which were molested by the manager. M.G. (and others) appeared in the photo and sued for invasion of privacy. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike is affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the anti-SLAPP statute applied to the publication of the story. Time Warner argued that the photo was not private and its publication met the test of newsworthiness. Plaintiffs argued the photo was private and not newsworthy. The court concluded that plaintiffs had demonstrated the likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim, thus fulfilling their burden under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Macias v. Hartwell
(1997, 2d District – 55 Cal.App.4th 669, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 222)
An unsuccessful candidate for a labor union office sued the successful candidate, alleging that defendant’s campaign flyers were defamatory. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed. The “anti-SLAPP law applies to defamation actions arising out of statements made in a union election.”
Major v. Silna
(2005, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 1485, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 875)
In connection with an election, defendant Silna mailed a letter to a number of Malibu residents supporting certain candidates. Plaintiff Major filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Malibu Municipal Code. Silna filed an anti-SLAPP motion which the trial court denied, finding that Major’s action fell within the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17(b) exemption to the anti-SLAPP law.
The appellate court reversed, concluding that section 425.17 did not apply because subdivision (d)(2) excepts from this exemption “[a]ny action against a person … based upon the … dissemination … or similar promotion of any … political … work.” The court further held that Major could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits because he lacked standing to seek injunctive relief.
Maleti v. Wickers
(2022, 6th District – 82 Cal.App. 5th 181)
Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co.
(2010, 4th District – 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 487)
Malin v. Singer
(2013, 2d District – 217 Cal.App.4th 1283, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 292)
Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc.
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1040, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 457)
Manlin v. Milner
(2022, 2d District – 82 Cal. App. 5th 613)
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (“Mann I”)
(2004, 4th District – 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 215)
The court holds that where a defendant has shown that a substantial part of a cause of action constitutes speech or petitioning activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff need only show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim. Once the plaintiff makes this showing, the court need not determine whether the plaintiff can substantiate all theories for that cause of action.
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (“Mann II”)
(2006, 4th District – 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 607)
Plaintiff challenged an attorney fees award, arguing that defendants were not prevailing parties within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (c) because they were unsuccessful in striking three of the four challenged causes of action. The appellate court held that “a party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the motion,” and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining defendants were prevailing parties on the anti-SLAPP motion. However, it found that the lower court erred in failing to reduce the fees to reflect that defendants were only partially successful on the motion and ordered the fees reduced by 50%.
Maranatha Corrections, LLC v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(2008, 3d District – 158 Cal.App.4th 1075, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 614)
Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffy
(2006, 2d District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1262, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 867)
Plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution action against defendant and its counsel. Each defendant filed anti-SLAPP motions, which were denied on the basis that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. The appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish probable cause.
Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 488)
Marshall v. Webster
(2020, 3d District – 54 Cal.App.5th 275, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 530)
Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 113 Cal.App.4th 181, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 494)
Martinez sued Metabolife for personal injury, alleging that the injury was caused by ingestion one of Metabolife’s products. Metabolife filed a special motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the complaint targeted commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. This case was decided shortly before Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 became effective (Jan. 1, 2004). Section 425.17 states that the anti-SLAPP motion cannot be applied to any complaint against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services where the cause of action arises from advertising or other commercial speech. (See also Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2004); Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc., 3d District Court of Appeal (2004).)
Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(2011, 4th District – 198 Cal. App.4th 611, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 410)
Matson v. Dvorak
(1995, 3d District – 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880)
An unsuccessful candidate for a local legislative office sued a rival candidate and several contributors to an organization that published a flyer accusing him of having “hundreds of dollars of unpaid fines and citations” issued by the police, alleging libel and invasion of privacy. The trial court’s granting of defendant’s special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
(2002, 2d District – 99 Cal.App.4th 1179, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 794)
Defendant law firm prosecuted a case for copyright infringement against Mattel, maker of the Barbie doll. A federal district court found for Mattel, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the trial court that the case for copyright infringement was without factual foundation. Mattel then sued the law firm in state court for malicious prosecution. The trial court denied a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeal rules that an action for malicious prosecution qualifies for treatment under the anti-SLAPP statute and affirms the trial court’s judgment that the plaintiff had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its action.
Maughan v. Google Technology Inc.
(2006, 2d District – 143 Cal.App.2d Dist 1284, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 861)
McGarry v. University of San Diego
(2007, 4th District – 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 467)
McNair v. Superior Court
(2016, 2d District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1227, 211 Cal Rptr 3d 919)
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45)
(modified 3-20-2020 – 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 237)
Medley Capital Corporation v. Security National Guaranty, Inc.
(2017, 1st District – 17 Cal.App.5th 33, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 736
Melbostad v. Fisher
(2008, 1st District – 165 Cal.App.4th 987, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 354)
Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc.
(2010, 2d District – 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 294)
Mendoza v. Hamzeh
(2013, 2d District – 215 Cal.App.4th 799, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 832)
Mendoza v. Wichmann
(2011, 3d District – 194 Cal.App.4th 1430, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 823)
Metcalf v. U-Haul International, Inc.
(2004, 4th District – 118 Cal.App.4th 1261, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 686)
Metcalf sued U-Haul for unfair competition, alleging that it consistently overstated the size of its rental trailers in advertisements. U-Haul filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the complaint arose from its constitutionally protected right to commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirms. At issue on appeal is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, which prevents defendants sued for false advertising from using the anti-SLAPP motion and which became effective after the complaint in this case was filed. The court rejects appellant’s contentions that section 425.17 is unconstitutionally discriminatory and that in any event it cannot apply to a case in progress.
Midland Pacific Building Corp. v. King
(2007, 2d District – 153 Cal.App.4th 499, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 129)
Miller v. City of Los Angeles
(2008, 2d District – 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 510)
Miller v. Filter
(2007, 3d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 652, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 671)
Miller v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
(2019, 1st District – 41 Cal.App.5th 247, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 124)
Mireskandari v. Gallagher
(2021, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 346, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 371)
Mission Beverage Company v. Pabst Brewing Company, LLC
(2017, 2d District – 15 Cal.App.5th 686, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 547)
Mission Oaks Ranch, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara
(1998, 2d District – 65 Cal.App.4th 713, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 1)
Note:  This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
Mission Oaks applied to the county for a tract map for property development and agreed to pay for an environmental impact report (EIR). The draft EIR found that Mission Oaks’ project would have numerous adverse and unmitigable consequences. Mission Oaks sued the county for breach of contract, alleging that it was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the county and the consultant that prepared the EIR. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is upheld. “Here Mission Oaks is simply a disgruntled developer who does not like the findings prepared by the independent environmental consultants for the County and the public. Mission Oaks seeks to stifle the EIR prepared for the County and the public. [The] SLAPP [statute] is designed to preclude such attempts to silence those who speak out on matters of public interest before legislative bodies.” The court distinguished this case from Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. C.S.I. Telecommunications Engineers. 
Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Verjil
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 892, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 524)
Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies, LLC
(2021, 2nd District – 70 Cal.App.5th 207, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 211)
MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich
(3/12/2018, 4th District – 21 Cal.App.5th 167, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 198)
Mobile Medical Services, etc. v. Rajaram
(2015, 4th District – 241 Cal.App.4th 164, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 568)
Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club, Inc. v. City of Lancaster
(2012, 2d District –  208 Cal.App.4th 124, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 122)
Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 483
(1999, 6th District – 69 Cal.App.4th 1057, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 10)
Hotel sued union alleging defamatory statements by a union official in a news report of a labor dispute at the hotel. The trial court granted the union’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms, holding that plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case of slander in its pleadings.                         
Moore v. Kaufman
(2010, 2d District – 189 Cal.App.4th 604, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 196)
Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District v. Weir
(2004, 1st District – 115 Cal.App.4th 477, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 13)
After a homeowners association submitted a rebuttal argument against a tax increase for a voter information pamphlet, the fire district sought a court order modifying or eliminating certain statements in the association’s argument. The association filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the fire district’s petition and then denied the association’s request for attorney fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute on the grounds that, since the mandamus proceeding had been resolved on the merits, the anti-SLAPP motion was moot. On appeal the fire district contends that challenges to statements in voter pamphlets are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute and that the statute must be “harmonized” with provisions in the Elections Code authorizing legal challenges to false or inaccurate voter pamphlets. The appellate court rules that the anti-SLAPP statute is not inconsistent with the Elections Code, that it does apply in this case, and the association is entitled to fees and costs.
Morin v. Rosenthal
(2004, 2d District – 122 Cal.App.4th 673, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 149)
Moriarty v. Laramar Management Corp.
(2014, 1st District – 224 Cal.App.4th 125, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 461)
The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that it was untimely. Defendants had argued that they could not have filed the motion any sooner because they had a motion pending to transfer the case to another district of the superior court. The appellate court affirms.
Morris Cerullo World Evangelism v. Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC
(2021, 4th District – 67 Cal.App.5th 1149, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 164)
Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2007, 2d District – 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 885)
Moss Bros. Toy, Inc. v. Ruiz
(2018, 4th District – 27 Cal.App.5th 424, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 292)
Muddy Waters, LLC v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County
(2021, 4th District – 62 Cal.App.5th 905, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 204)
Mundy v. Lenc
(2012, 2d District – 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 464)
Murphy v. Twitter Inc.
(2021, 1st District – 60 Cal.App.5th 12, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 360)
Murray v. Tran
(2020, 4th District – 55 Cal.App.5th 10, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 231)
Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC
(2021, 2nd District – 72 Cal.App.5th 802, 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 625)

N-O

Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 109 Cal.App.4th 39, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 420)
This class action against Twin Laboratories, which manufactures and markets nutritional and dietary supplements, alleged violation of various statutes because of false advertising of product ingredients. Twin Labs moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that its advertising was commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. The trial court agreed that defendant’s labeling and advertising were protected commercial speech but also concluded that plaintiffs had established a probability of prevailing on their claims, therefore defeating the motion. The appellate court affirms the denial but on the grounds that a list of product ingredients is not commercial speech protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Nam v. Regents of University of California
(2016, 3d District – 1 Cal.App.5th 1176, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 687)
Navarro v. IHOP Properties, Inc.
(2005, 4th District – 134 Cal.App.4th 834, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
Plaintiff sued IHOP for fraud alleging that IHOP never intended to keep its promise made in a stipulated judgment to consider offers to purchase her franchise “without undue delay.”; IHOP appealed the trial court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that 1) the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 exemption did not apply because any promises or statements made by defendant were to induce settlement of a lawsuit and were not made during a commercial transaction; 2) the complaint arose from defendant’s statements in, or in connection with a judicial proceeding; and 3) plaintiff did not prove a probability of prevailing on her claim because the statements IHOP made during a stipulated judgment were protected by the litigation privilege and she failed to show causation.
Navellier v. Sletten
(2003, 1st District – 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201)
Plaintiffs brought actions for fraud and breach of contract. Defendant moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, the motion was denied, and the appellate court affirmed on the grounds that the causes of action — negotiation and execution of a release agreement and pursuit of counterclaims in litigation — were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (unpublished opinion). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the causes of action were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and remanded the case to the court of appeal with instructions to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. (See Navellier v. Sletten, California Supreme Court.) Specifically, the court was directed to consider whether plaintiff had established a probability of prevailing on its complaint. In this opinion the court holds that the plaintiffs have not established a probability of prevailing on their claims and thus reverses the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.
Nelson v. Tucker Ellis, LLP
(2020, 1st District – 48 Cal.App.5th 827, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 250)
Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist.
(2012, 4th District – 204 Cal.App.4th 65, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 446)

Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
(2021, 4th District – 71 Cal.App.5th 769, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 631)

Neville v. Chudacoff
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 383)
Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 216) (ordered published 12/26/16)
(re-appealed, 2018, 4th District – 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 540)
Nguyen-Lam v. Cuoung Cao
(2009, 4th District – 171 Cal.App.4th 858, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 205)
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council v. Warmington Hercules Associates
(2004, 1st District – 124 Cal.App.4th 296, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 918)
A carpenters’ union and individuals sued building contractors for failure to pay them prevailing wages under city’s Redevelopment Agency’s policy, alleging unfair business practices. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the lawsuit was retaliation for their petition to a state agency for a determination that they were not required to pay prevailing wages.  The motion was denied by the court on the grounds that the cause of action did not arise from filing a petition with the state but from failure to pay prevailing wages.  On appeal plaintiffs argued that the court was required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 to affirm the trial court’s denial.  Section 425.17 was intended to curb abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute by providing that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to “any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public.”  The appellate court affirms the trial court’s ruling, holding that the plaintiffs’ complaint meets the conditions of section 425.17.  (See also Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc..)
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.
(2006, 1st District – 143 Cal.App.1st 1284, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 861)
Nunez v. Pennisi
(2015, 6th District – 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 912)
Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula(2008, 2d District – 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210)
O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC
(2019, 1st District – 42 Cal.App.5th 546, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 596)
Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
(2020, 1st District – 54 Cal.App.5th 738, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 170)
Ojjeh v. Brown
(2019, 1st District – 43 Cal.App.5th 1027, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 146)
Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2017, 2d District – 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 475)
Olaes v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
(2006, 3d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 1501, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 467)
Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against his former employer, alleging he had been defamed during its investigation of sexual harassment complaints against him. The trial court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply because a sexual harassment investigation within a private company does not constitute an official proceeding, and an investigation by a private employer concerning a small group of people does not involve an issue of public interest.
Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc.
(2014, 6th District – 230 Cal.App.4th 859, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 129)
Olivares v. Pineda
(2019, 1st District – 40 Cal.App.5th 343, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 213)
Olive Properties, L.P. v. Coolwaters Enterprises, Inc.
(2015, 2d District – 241 Cal.App.4th 1169, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 524)
Olsen v. Harbison
(2005, 3d District – 134 Cal.App.4th 278, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 684)
Co-counsel sued each other in a dispute over fee sharing. Nine months after a second amended complaint was filed, defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court found the anti-SLAPP motion was untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after service of the complaint. Harbison appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as frivolous and sanctioned Harbison.
Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP
(2017, 2d District – 18 Cal.App.5th 95, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 246)
Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Nativo Lopez
(2010, 4th District – 190 Cal.App.4th 1248, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 127)
Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc.
(2007, 1st District – 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29)
Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Props, LLC
(2012, 4th District – 212 Cal.App.4th 97, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 117)
(Opinion filed on 11/19/12; modified on 11/2712; and certified for publication on 12/18/12)

P

Padres L.P. v. Henderson
(2004, 4th District – 114 Cal.App.4th 495, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 584)
The owners of the Padres baseball club filed claims for malicious prosecution against attorney Henderson arising from a series of lawsuits Henderson had filed challenging actions taken by the City of San Diego, in collaboration with the Padres, to develop a new baseball park. Henderson filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike all claims. The trial court dismissed claims based on one of Henderson’s lawsuits (plaintiffs had conceded the claim was time-barred) and denied the special motion to strike the claims based on other lawsuits filed by Henderson. The appellate court reverses in part. The court holds that no absolute privilege applies to Henderson’s filing of the lawsuits against the Padres (and thus distinguishes City of Long Beach v. Bozek, California Supreme Court, 1982). The court concludes, however, that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated the requisite lack of probable cause in support of two of their three claims for malicious prosecution.
Paiva v. Nichols
(2008, 6th District – 168 Cal.App.4th 1007, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 838)
Panakosta v. Hammer Lane Management, LLC
(2011, 3d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 612, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 835)
Paredes v. CREDIT CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
(2022, 6th District – 82 Cal. App. 5th 410)
Park 100 Investment Group II, LLC v. Gregory R. Ryan
(2009, 2d District – 180 Cal.App.4th 795, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 218)
Pasternack v. McCullough
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 1347, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 81)
(re-appealed, 4th District – — Cal.Rptr.3d —)
Patel v. Chavez
(2020, 2d District – 48 Cal.App.5th 484, 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 829)
Paterno v. Superior Court
(2008, 4th District – 163 Cal.App.4th 1342, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 244)
Paul for Council v. Hanyecz
(2001, 2d District – 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 864)
Paul was a candidate for city council. He sued defendants, alleging that they interfered with his candidacy by contributing to an opponent in a manner that violated the state’s Political Reform Act. Defendants filed a special motion to strike the allegation. They effectively conceded the illegal nature of their method of campaign contributions, but argued that their campaign money laundering was nevertheless “in furtherance” of their First Amendment rights, and thus was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses, holding that such illegal activity is not a valid exercise of constitutional rights as contemplated by the anti-SLAPP statute. (See also The Governor Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers Alliance.
Paul v. Friedman
(2002, 2d District 95 Cal.App.4th 853, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 82)
Former clients sued Paul, a securities broker, alleging fraud, negligence, and violation of securities laws. Paul was completely vindicated in an arbitration proceeding; in addition, the court awarded sanctions against the plaintiffs for filing a “frivolous claim for which there was no factual foundation.” Paul then sued his former clients and their lawyer, Friedman, for malicious prosecution and a variety of other causes arising from Friedman’s investigation of Paul during the aribtration proceeding and disclosure of personal information. Friedman filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, on the grounds that the investigation and disclosure of information were related to “an issue under consideration or review” in the arbitration proceeding. The trial court granted Friedman’s motion to strike all tort and contract claims but refused to strike Paul’s claim that Friedman has breached a confidentiality agreement reached at the commencement of arbitration for the earlier lawsuit. In a complex decision the appellate court rules that Paul’s tort and contract claims cannot be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute since Friedman had not met his burden of proof, i.e., he had not made the required prima facie showing that Paul’s claims arose from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc.
(2006, 6th District – 139 Cal.App.4th 659, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 148)
Lynch brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Paulus’s action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional interference with contract. The court granted the motion and awarded Lynch attorney fees and costs. Paulus appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Paulus failed to make a prima facie showing of lack of probable cause for his malicious prosecution claim. The court further found that Paulus had made no independent factual or legal arguments regarding the merits of his other claims in the trial court, nor had he specifically addressed the matter in his opening brief, and thus deemed Paulus to have abandoned any challenge to the order striking those two claims.
Pech v. Doniger
(2022, 2nd District – 75 Cal.App.5th 443, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 47)
People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc.
(2001, 1st District – 87 Cal.App.4th 442, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 618)
The district attorneys of two counties sued the manufacturer of a weight-loss product, alleging that advertising claims violated various state statutes. Defendant filed a special motion to strike, arguing that the action was prosecuted to chill its exercise of free speech. Defendant acknowledged that the anti-SLAPP statute expressly does not apply to an enforcement action brought by a district attorney (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (d)), but challenged the constitutionality of this exclusion. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms, holding that the exclusion does not violate the “equal protection” clause of either the U.S. or California constitutions.
People v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
(2014, 1st District – 228 Cal.App.4th 1382, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 496)
People ex rel. 20th Century Insurance Co. v. Building Permit Consultants, Inc.
(2000, 2d District – 86 Cal.App.4th 280, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 71)
An insurance company sued a company that assisted individuals in preparing estimates of damages from an earthquake. Plaintiff alleged that defendants arranged with homeowners to artificially increase the estimates on the condition they receive up to 50 percent of the insurance payments. Defendants filed a special motion to strike, arguing that the estimates were prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore were exercises in the right of petition. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. “At the time defendants created and submitted their reports and claims, there was no ‘issue under consideration’ pending before any official proceedings.”
People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin
(2021, 4th District – 66 Cal.App.5th 493, 280 Cal.Rptr.3d 858)
People ex rel. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Anapol
(2012, 2d District – 211 Cal.App.4th 809)
People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar
(2004, 4th District – 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 844)
The state attorney general filed a complaint against Brar to obtain an order to stop Brar from filing lawsuits under the state’s unfair competition law. Brar moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeal dismisses the motion as friviolous inasmuch as the anti-SLAPP statute, by its own provisions, does not apply to actions brought by public prosecutors.
People ex rel. v. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp.
(2012, 4th District – 210 Cal.App.4th 487, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361)
Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
(2005, 1st District – 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 31)
This case arose from the collapse of a fraudulent investment scheme. Plaintiffs — investors who lost millions and a bankruptcy trustee representing entities that were used to perpetrate the scheme — sued defendant law firm for conduct which allegedly helped advance the fraudulent scheme. The trial court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed in part, finding the motion should have been granted in part because plaintiffs’ claims were partially based on positions the firm took in court, or in anticipation of litigation with the SEC, and some plaintiffs did not establish a probability of prevailing. Specifically, the court concluded the bankruptcy trustee’s claims on behalf of one entity were barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and the investors’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Personal Court Reporters, Inc. v. Rand
(2012, 2d District – 205 Cal.App.4th 182, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 301)
Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard
(2002, 2d District – 101 Cal.App.4th 211, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 647)
A landlord notified tenants to vacate their parking spaces for construction. The tenants association encouraged tenants to send the landlord a letter protesting that they could be forced to vacate their parking spaces only after a “legal process.” In the aftermath, two of the landlord’s locks were broken. The landlord sued the tenants association and certain tenants for damages on a variety of claims. Defendants filed a demurrer and notified the plaintiff of their intention to file a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. On the eve of the deadline to file the anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff dismissed all but two individual defendants, and shortly thereafter filed an amended complaint. The trial court dismissed the case under the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) and thus did not conduct a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants filed a motion for attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute; the motion was denied on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. Held on appeal: “the trial court has jurisdiction to award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant whose SLAPP motion was not heard solely because the matter was dismissed before defendants obtained a ruling on the SLAPP motion.”
Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Superior Court
(2003, 2d District – 107 Cal.App.4th 761, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 400)
Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig
(2007, 4th District – 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 504)
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(2004, 1st District – 119 Cal.App.4th 120, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 926)
Plaintiff brought an action for unfair business practice under Business & Professions Code § 17500, alleging that Tyson made false and deceptive representations about its chicken products sold in California. Tyson filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the cause of action arose from Tyson’s exercise of its right of free speech “in connection with a public issue”. The trial court granted the motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of success on its claims. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, enacted while the appeal was pending, applies to the case. Section 425.17 provides that the anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint cannot be applied to “any cause of action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, … arising from any statement or conduct by that person,” as long as certain conditions are met. Moreover, section 425.17 contains a retroactivity clause that operated as a repeal of the trial court’s order.  (See also Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.)
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Foti
(2003, 1st District – 107 Cal.App.4th 345, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 46)
Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief, asking the court to apply to defendants an earlier injunction limiting demonstrations outside its clinic. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that defendants had waived protection of the anti-SLAPP statute by stipulating that the present action could be filed. The appellate court affirms the denial. Held: the question whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies in this case became moot once the trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment because in denying summary judgment the trial court impliedly found that plaintiff had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its claim.
Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
(2008, 4th District – 166 Cal.App.4th 772, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 95)
Plumley v. Mockett
(2008, 2d District – 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 822)
Pott v. Lazarin
(2020, 6th District – 47 Cal.App.5th 141, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 631)
Prediwave Corporation v. SImpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
(2009, 6th District – 179 Cal.App.4th 1204, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 245)
Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (“Premier Medical I”)
(2006, 2d District – 136 Cal.App.4th, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 43)
Defendants petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to determine whether plaintiff was improperly representing treating physicians in WCAB proceedings. Plaintiff sued, alleging that the defendants were engaged in anticompetitive activity. Arguing that the complaint was based entirely on the defendants’ constitutional right to petition the WCAB, defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the constitutional right to petition includes the basic act of seeking administrative action.
Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (“Premier Medical II”)
(2008, 2d District – 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 695)
Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3
(2011, 3d District- 195 Cal.App.4th 962; 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 220)
Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
(2014, 1st District – 226 Cal.App.4th 643, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 238)

Q-R

Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea
(2009, 4th District- 175 Cal. App. 4th 1363; 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 196)
Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Foods and Commercial Workers Union Local 8
(2011, 5th District – 192 Cal.App.4th 200, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 878)
Ralphs Grocery Company v. Victory Consultants, Inc.
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 305)
certified for publication
Ramona Unified School District v. Tsiknas
(2005, 4th Distict – 135 Cal.App.4th 510, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 381)
Ramona Unified School District (District) sued Neighborhood Alliance for Safe Ramona Schools (Alliance) for abuse of process and barratry stemming from Alliance’s writ petition challenging a District construction project. The trial court granted Alliance’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed. It held that the gravamen of the abuse of process claim was actually for malicious prosecution, and was barred under City of Long Beach v. Bozek, California Supreme Court, 1982, which held a government entity may not institute a malicious prosecution proceeding against a former plaintiff. To succeed on the barratry claim, plaintiffs had to show the defendants “excited” at least three groundless lawsuits, however defendants’ amendments to their writ petition did not constitute separate proceedings.
Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson
(2016, 2d District – 247 Cal.App.4th 1080, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 46)
Ratcliff v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
(2021, 2nd District – 63 Cal.App.5th 869, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 227)
Reed v. Gallagher
(2016, 3d District – 248 Cal.App.4th 841, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 178)
Renewable Resources Coalition , Inc. v. Pebble Mines Corp.
(2013, 2d District – 218 Cal.App.4th 384, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 901)
Reyes v. Kruger
(2020, 6th District – 55 Cal.App.5th 58, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 549)
Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
(2004, 2d Distict – 116 Cal.App.4th 135, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 333)
Several individuals sued Sony Pictures under the state’s unfair competition statute, alleging that Sony falsely portrayed a person as a film critic and attributed to him laudatory reviews of its films. The studio filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint; the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that advertisements for films, as commercial speech, are not protected under the First Amendment. The appellate court (in a split decision) affirms.
Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, Inc.
(2019, 1st District – 32 Cal.App.5th 458, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 816)
Rivera v. First Databank, Inc.
(2010, 4th District – 187 Cal.App.4th 709, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Rivero v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
(2003, 1st District – 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 81)
Rivero sued numerous individuals and entities, alleging defamation and other claims arising from statements made by the union as part of its contract negotiation campaign. Rivero, a supervising janitor at a university, had been accused of theft, extortion, and favoritism by employees he supervised. Although the charges were not substantiated by an investigation, Rivero’s position was terminated and he was assigned work as a pot scrubber. During contract negotiations with the university the union distributed flyers that claimed union janitors had stood up to their “abusive supervisor” and caused his firing. The union filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the statements made by the union during contract negotiations do not fall under activity protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Most of the court’s opinion focuses on the phrase “in connection with a public issue” in the anti-SLAPP statute.
RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc.
(2020, 4th District – 56 Cal.App.5th 413, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 425)
Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Association
(2003, 2d District – 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 546)
Roberts was a candidate in an election for municipal court judge in Los Angeles. The bar association evaluates all candidates in contested elections for judgeships through its judicial evaluation committee. A candidate may request disqualification of any member of the committee who the candidate believes has a potential conflict of interest. Roberts objected to seven members of the committee. The day after the committee publicly issued an evaluation of Roberts as “not qualified,” Roberts sued the association for breach of contract and fraud based on the allegation that one of the committee members who should have been disqualified at her request was actually present during committee deliberations. The association filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint; the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the suit, which sought damages in connection with the evaluation process, was not a SLAPP. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the evaluation process is “inextricably intertwined with and part and parcel of the evaluations,” which are constitutionally protected speech. Thus, the anti-SLAPP statute applies as much to the evaluation process as to the evaluations themselves.
Robertson v. Rodriguez
(1995, 2d District – 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 464)
A city councilman, alleging libel, sued proponents of a campaign to recall him. At issue was a mailer stating that the plaintiff had been fined by the city for operating an illegal business out of his home. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
Robinzine v. Vicory
(2006, 1st District – 148 Cal.App.4th 1416, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 65)
Robles v. Chalilpoyil
(2010, 6th District – 181 Cal.App.4th 566, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 628)
Roche v. Hyde
(2020, 1st District – 51 Cal.App.5th 757, 265 Cal.Rptr.3d 301)
Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC
(2014, 2d District – 225 Cal.App.4th 660, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 431)
Rohde v. Wolf
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 28, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 348)
Rosenaur v. Scherer
(2001, 3d District – 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 674)
Rosenaur launched a ballot initiative to permit commercial development of land he owned. The measure lost after a bitterly fought campaign. Rosenaur sued defendants, opponents of the measure, alleging defamation. The trial court granted a special motion to strike the allegation. The appellate court affirms, holding that the statements alleged to be defamatory could not reasonably be interpreted as factual and therefore plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case for defamation. Rosenaur also appealed the award of attorney fees to defendants, arguing that defendants are not entitled to recover attorney fees because defense counsel agreed to a partial pro bono fee. Held: neither the plain language of the anti-SLAPP statute nor the policies underlying it justifies denying a prevailing defendant attorney fees when representation is pro bono.
Ross v. Kish
(2006, 2d District – 145 Cal.App.4th 188, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 484)
Rudisill v. California Coastal Com.
(2019, 2d District – 35 Cal.App.5th 1062, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 840)
Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Association
(2005, 4th District – 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133)
Ruiz alleged that two letters written by HVCA’s attorney defamed him. The trial court denied HVCA’s anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that the letters were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the two letters were communications regarding an issue of public interest. The court further found that Ruiz had not shown a probability of prevailing: he failed to show the second letter was defamatory, or that either letter had been published. However, the court remanded with directions for the trial court to reconsider Ruiz’s request for discovery only on the issue of publication of the first letter and decide the anti-SLAPP motion accordingly.
Russell v. Foglio
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 653, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 87)

S

S.A. v. Maiden
(2014, 4th District – 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 567)
Salma v. Capon
(2008, 1st District – 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 873)
Sanchez v. Bezos
(June 30, 2022, B309364, B312143)
San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction, Inc.
(2015, 4th District – 240 Cal.App.4th 611, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 559)
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association
(2004, 1st District – 125 Cal.App.4th 343, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724)
A complaint seeking judicial review of an action or decision by a public entity is not subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The action is not itself an exercise of the public entity’s right of free speech or petition.
Sandlin v. McLaughlin
(2020, 4th District – 50 Cal.App.5th 805, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 874)
Santa Barbara County Coalition Against Automobile Subsidies v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
(2008, 2d District – 167 Cal.App.4th 1229, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 714)
Santa Clara Waste Water Company v. County of Ventura Environmental Health Division
(2017, 2d District – 17 Cal.App.5th 1082, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 885)
Santa Monica Rent Control Board v. Pearl Street, LLC
(2003, 2d District – 109 Cal.App.4th 1308, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 903)
The Board filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that state and local rent control law were violated by defendants. At issue is whether, in light of facts presented to the Board, defendants are entitled to charge market rate for rental of certain units. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the basis of the suit — defendants’ filing of notices of their intention to re-rent units at market rates — is not an act by defendants in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech and therefore is not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Save Westwood Village v. Luskin
(2014, 2d District – 233 Cal.App.4th 135, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 328)
Scalzo v. American Express Co.
(2010, 2d District – 185 Cal.App.4th 91, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 638)
Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco
(2008, 1st Distrct – 168 Cal.App.4th 992, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 880)
Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc.
(2002, 2d District – 97 Cal.App.4th 227, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 313)
UDR is a consumer reporting agency that gathers and sells information about unlawful detainer cases. Schoendorf, a tenant, after unsuccessfully attempting to have UDR amend information about her in UDR’s records, sued UDR for acts of negligence. The trial court granted the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion, on the grounds that UDR had a constitutionally protected right to disseminate information found in court records. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the information gathered by UDR does not come exclusively from court records. In addition, the court holds, UDR has a duty under both state and federal credit reporting statutes, which require “maximum accuracy” in credit reports, and this duty is not abrogated or reduced by any First Amendment rights. (See also Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003)
Schroeder v. City Council of the City of Irvine
(2002, 4th District – 97 Cal.App.4th 174, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 330)
Schroeder sued the Irvine City Council over the council’s approval of funds for a voter registration drive (Vote 2000), alleging that the program was a ruse to campaign for a county measure concerning development of an abandoned military airbase. The trial court granted defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, ruling that the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of proving that the expenditures for Vote 2000 were unlawful political expenditures. Schroeder appealed, arguing that if his demonstration of the likelihood of prevailing on his claims was deficient it was because he was denied permission to conduct “specified discovery” that would have produced evidence the expenditures were unlawful. In addition, he argued that the anti-SLAPP statute’s provision for attorney fees for the prevailing party should be construed as permissive or declared unconstitutional. The appellate court concludes that Schroeder had not shown good cause to conduct specified discovery; materials sought by Schroeder were either readily available without the device of discovery or were irrelevant to his claims as a matter of law. The court also upholds the constitutionality of the anti-SLAPP statute’s provision for mandatory attorney fees.
Schwarzburd v. Kensington Police Protection & Community Services Dist.
(2014, 1st District – 225 Cal.App.4th 1345, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 899)
Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2004, 3d District – 115 Cal.App.4th 404, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 242)
Scott sued Metabolife for damages for false and deceitful advertising, alleging that she was injured by a Metabolife product. Metabolife filed a motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the causes of action arose from its advertising, labeling, marketing, and promoting of its product, activities protected by the First Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to strike the complaint for false advertising on the grounds that “applying [the anti-SLAPP statute] to advertising would be stretching the definition of that statute to its outermost boundaries.” The appellate court affirms on the grounds that Metabolife’s advertising of its products for profit does not concern an issue of public interest as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. (Between the trial court’s ruling and the time this matter was heard in oral argument before the appellate court, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 became law. Under section 425.17, commercial advertising is not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.) (See also Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2003); Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2004).)
Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.
(2002, 1st District – 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 108)
Seelig participated in a TV show, “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire.” Before the broadcast Seelig was invited to appear on a radio talk show. She declined. The radio program hosts discussed on the air her refusal to be interviewed. Seelig sued the radio program hosts and the broadcast station owners for damages, alleging defamation and other causes. The defendants filed both a demurrer and a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reverses, concluding that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to the radio broadcast and plaintiff could not prevail on the merits of her claims, since none of the alleged defamatory statements were actionable statements of fact.
Seltzer v. Barnes
(2010, 1st District – 182 Cal.App.4th 953, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 290)
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment
(2020, 2d District – 44 Cal.App.5th 103, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 398)
Shahbazian v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(2017, 2d District – 17 Cal.App.5th 823, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 772)
Sheley v. Harrop
(2017, 3d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 1197, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 606)
Shekhter v. Financial Indemnity Co.
(2001, 2d District – 89 Cal.App.4th 141, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 843)
Financial sued a number of persons, including Shekhter, alleging insurance fraud. The suit was settled, with the condition that all information relating to the suit be kept confidential. Later, in the present case, Allstate Insurance filed a complaint against Shekhter alleging insurance fraud. Shekhter filed a cross-complaint against Allstate but also Financial Indemnity, its lawyers, and others. Shekhter alleged inter alia that the conduct of Financial’s lawyers in the earlier suit against him included unfair business practices and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Motions by different defendants to strike specific causes of action in the cross-complaint were denied by the trial court. The appellate court reversed. Held: a special motion to strike can apply toa single cause of action when other claims remain to be resolved. Additionally, actions by an attorney on behalf of a SLAPP target fall within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute. In this case because the actions alleged to be unfair business practices and violations of the Unruh Act arose in connection with the prosecution of a lawsuit, they were actions in furtherance of the right of petition and thus covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Sheppard v. Lightpost Museum Fund
(2006, 6th District – 146 Cal.App.4th 315, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 821)
Siam v. Kizilbash
(2005, 6th District – 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 368)
Kizilbash accused Siam of abusing his two sons, reporting him to public officials. He also filed a civil harassment petition against Siam. In turn, Siam sued Kizilbash for defamation and malicious prosecution among other causes of action. The trial court denied Kizilbash’s motion to dismiss the entire complaint as a SLAPP. The appellate court upholds the order except for the claim of malicious prosecution, holding that such a claim may not be based on a civil harassment petition. In addition, the court holds that the “litigation privilege” (Civil Code section 47) is overriden by liability for false reporting under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code section 11164 et seq.).
Silk v. Feldman
(2012, 2d District – 208 Cal.App.4th 547)
Simmons v. Allstate Insurance Co.
(2001, 3d District – 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 397)
Simmons filed a cross-complaint for defamation after Allstate sued him for unfair business practices (alleging that Simmons had overtreated patients covered by Allstate). The trial court granted a special motion to strike the cross-complaint. On appeal, Simmons claimed that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him leave to amend the cross-complaint after the court had granted the motion. Held: allowing a SLAPP plaintiff to amend the complaint would undermine the anti-SLAPP statute’s purpose of providing for quick dismissal of meritless lawsuits.
Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
(2020, 2d District – 50 Cal.App.5th 1037, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 903)
Singh v. Lipworth
(2014, 3d District – 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 131)
Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress
(1999, 2d District – 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 83 Cal.Rptr. 677)
The magazine “Mother Jones” published an article about a custody battle, ostensibly to show how rich and powerful men may use the legal system to their advantage over women who may have been abused by them. The subject of the article sued the magazine for defamation. The appellate court upholds the trial court’s dismissal of the suit following a special motion to strike the complaint. The court concluded that the subject of the article was not the private affair of an individual but a public proceeding involving public issues. “[T]he issues of spousal abuse generated in the custody proceedings are of public interest when the person accused of the abuse is a nationally known figure identified with morality campaigns for national leaders ….” The defendant argued that there was a probability he would prevail on his defamation claim because not all of the magazine article was privileged under Civil Code section 47, which confers an absolute privilege on any fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. The court rejected this argument on the grounds that the defendant has made his case if he can establish by the evidence that the gist of the alleged defamatory statements is justified.
Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
(2020, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.5th 109, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 594)
Slaney v. Ranger Insurance Co.
(2004, 2d District – 115 Cal.App.4th 306, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 915)
Slaney prepared an estimate for repair of an aircraft in support of a claim by third parties presented to Ranger Insurance. The company denied the claim on grounds that the claim was fraudulently excessive and sued the insureds and Slaney for bad faith. Slaney’s motion for summary judgment was granted and he was dismissed from the suit. The insureds subsequently received a judgment against the company as well as punitive damages for malicious denial of their claim. Slaney then brought this action for malicious prosecution. The trial court denied the company’s anti-SLAPP motion after concluding that Slaney presented sufficient evidence to establish a probability of prevailing on his complaint. The appellate court affirms. According to the court, the underlying judgment against the company, which included a finding of malice and an award of punitive damages, demonstrated a potential for recovery in the present case.
Slauson Partnership v. Ochoa
(2003, 2d District – 112 Cal.App.4th 1005, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 668)
The owner of a mini-mall filed a complaint for injunctive relief against Ochoa, alleging he had organized ongoing demonstrations against one of the mall’s tenants, a club that produced nude shows. Ochoa filed an anti-SLAPP motion, but a month later the parties stipulated to an injunction that regulated the manner of the demonstrations. Ochoa’s motion was tabled to allow time for the injunction to be tested and reviewed by the court. After a month and a half, the trial court, based on testimony about the conduct of the demonstrations, denied the anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that plaintiffs had succeeded in demonstrating a probability of succeeding on its claim. In a lengthy opinion, the appellate court affirms, ruling that the trial court did not err in considering the same evidence for both the motion to strike and the injunction.
Smith v. Adventist Health System/West
(2010, 5th District – 190 Cal.App.4th 40, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 805)
Sonoma Media Investments, LLC v. Superior Court
(2019, 1st District – 34 Cal.App.5th 24, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 5)
South Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P.
(2011, 3d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 634)
Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery
(2014, 2d District – 232 Cal.App.4th 477, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 436)
Spencer v. Mowat
(2020, 2d District – 46 Cal.App.5th 1024, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 372)
Sprengel v. Zbylut
(2015, 2d District – 241 Cal.App.4th 140, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 407)
(modified 10-29-15)
Squires v. City of Eureka
(2014, 1st District – 231 Cal.App.4th 577, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 10)
Stafford v. Attending Staff Assn. of LAC + USC Medical Center
(2019, 2d District – 41 Cal.App.5th 629, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 369)
StaffPro, Inc. v. Elite Show Services, Inc.
(2006, 4th District – 136 Cal.App.4th 1392, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 682)
StaffPro filed a malicious prosecution suit against Elite which responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court granted Elite’s motion, ruling that StaffPro failed to carry its burden of establishing a probability that it would prevail because it had not shown favorable termination or probable cause. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a severability analysis is improper in determining whether a malicious prosecution plaintiff has demonstrated favorable termination of an underlying lawsuit. Thus, since the first cause of action in the underlying suit had not terminated in favor of StaffPro, it could not demonstrate favorable termination, and therefore could not prevail in its malicious prosecution suit.
Starview Property, LLC v. Lee
(2019, 2d District – 41 Cal.App.5th 203, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 58)
State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Majorino
(2002, 2d District – 99 Cal.App.4th 974, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 719)
Majorino and O’Brien sued several people after they were allegedly assaulted during a party at a private home. The home’s owners were among the named defendants; the owners tendered their defense to State Farm under their homeowner policy. State Farm then filed an action for declaratory relief, seeking a judicial determination of its duty to indemnify the homeowners. In turn, Majorino and O’Brien filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that State Farm’s action was designed to chill their right to petition for legal redress. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that Majorino and O’Brien had failed to demonstrate that State Farm’s action for declaratory relief qualified as a SLAPP under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. “[T]he act which underlies and forms the basis for State Farm’s declaratory relief action is not the personal injury lawsuit filed by appellants, but the [homeowners’] tender of the defense of that lawsuit under a policy that contains an arguably applicable exclusionary clause.”
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lee
(2011, 3d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 34, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 183)
Steadman v. Osborne
(2009, 4th District – 178 Cal.App.4th 950, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 724)
Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs
(2012, 2d District – 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 519)
Stenehjem v. Sareen
(2014, 6th District – 226 Cal.App.4th 1405, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 173)
Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC
(2010, 1st District – 181 Cal.App.4th 664, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 98)
Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 3 Cal.App.5th 118, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 411)
Sugarman v. Benett
(2021, 2d District – 73 Cal.App.5th 165, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 174)

Sugarman v. Brown
(2021, 2d District – 73 Cal.App.5th 152, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 165)

Summerfiled v. Randolph
(2011, 2d District – 201 Cal.App.4th 127)
Sunset Millennium Associates, LLC v. Le Songe, LLC
(2006, 2d District – 138 Cal.App.4th 256, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 273)
Sunset Millennium Associates v. LHO Grafton Hotel
(2006, 2d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 300, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 828)
Supershuttle International, Inc. v. Labor & Workforce Development Agency
(2019, 2d District – 40 Cal.App.5th 1058, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 666)
Swanson v. County of Riverside
(2019, 4th District – 36 Cal.App.5th 361, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 476)
Sycamore Ridge Apartments LLC v. Naumann
(2007, 4th District – 157 Cal.App.4th 1385, 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 561)
Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc.
(2004, 2d District – 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 882)
In response to Pueblo’s lawsuit against it, Sylmar filed a cross-complaint alleging fraud among other actions. Pueblo filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint for fraud. Before the hearing on the motion, Sylmar filed an amended cross-complaint. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion. On appeal Sylmar argued that its amended cross-complaint made the anti-SLAPP motion moot. The appellate court holds that a plaintiff may not avoid a hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion by filing an amended pleading, and thus, if the motion is granted, may not avoid the mandatory award of costs and attorney fees to the SLAPP target.
Symmonds v. Mahoney
(2019, 2d District – 31 Cal.App.5th 1096, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 445)

T


Taheri Law Group v. Evans
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 847)

Takhar v. People ex rel. Feather River Air Quality Management Dist.
(2018, 3d District – 27 Cal.App.5th 15, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 759)

Talega Maintenance Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp.
(2014, 4th District – 225 Cal.App.4th 722, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 453)

Tendler v. www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com
(2008, 6th District – 164 Cal.App.4th 802, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 407)

Appellant Tendler obtained a pre-lawsuit discovery order in an Ohio state court directed to Google, from whom he sought to learn the identities of the anonymous individuals who had posted statements about him on the Internet that he believed were defamatory. Tendler then filed a request for subpoenas in Santa Clara County Superior Court premised on the Ohio discovery order. The anonymous individuals filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The court held that a request for a subpoena is not a “cause of action,” and therefore cannot be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. In his concurrence, Justice McAdams urged the Legislature to consider whether the anti-SLAPP law should be expanded to include such third-party subpoena requests. As of Jan. 1, 2009, amendments to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 1987.2 provide that in a successful motion to quash such a subpoena, the court shall award the amount of the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in making the motion.

Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 264)

Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of University of California
(2019, 1st District – 40 Cal.App.5th 659, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 394)

Terry v. Davis Community Church
(2005, 3d District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1534, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 145)

Plaintiffs, employees of Davis Community Church, sued the church and others for defamation and emotional distress, alleging that church officials falsely accused them of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor in the course of their church work. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that private communications concerning issues of public interest are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (see Averill v. Superior Court) and plaintiffs had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims.

Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
(2012, 1st District –  207 Cal.App.4th 141, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 17)

Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin
(2020, 4th District – 49 Cal.App.5th 366, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 814)

Traditional Cat Association, Inc. v. Gilbreath
(2004, 4th District – 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 353)

This case arose because of a split in the ranks of organized cat breeders. The founder of The Traditional Cat Association sued defendants for allegedly defamatory statements published on their website. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, concluding that plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their complaint. The court’s decision was based on its ruling that defendants’ statute of limitations defense in their anti-SLAPP motion was not a proper issue for determination under the terms of the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court finds this conclusion erroneous. Moreover, it rejects plaintiffs’ argument that a cause of action for defamation arising from statements posted on a website arises continuously while the website is operating, holding that the single publication rule in the law of defamation applies to statements published on websites. Because defendants posted the alleged defamatory statements more than a year before plaintiffs filed their complaint, the action for defamation is barred by the statute of limitations. This is the first California court to adopt the single-publication rule for web publishing.

Thomas v. Quintero
(2005, 1st District – 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 619)

Quintero was part of organized public protests against Thomas, his landlord. After Quintero and others appeared at Thomas’s church, Thomas took action against Quintero by filing a petition seeking injunctive relief against civil harassment (Civil Code section 527.6). Quintero responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reverses. Held: A Section 527.6 petition to enjoin civil harassment is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. However, an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), issued pending a hearing on the petition for injunctive relief, is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. The request for a TRO does not qualify as a “cause of action” under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill
(2009, 6th District – 177 Cal.App.4th 1049, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 661)

Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard
(2014, 4th District – 222 Cal.App.4th 1447, 166 CAl.Rptr.3d 729)

Towner v. County of Ventura
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 761, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 891)

Trapp v. Naiman
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 113, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 462)

Trilogy at Glen Ivy Maintenance Assn. v. Shea Homes, Inc.
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 361, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 8)

Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company
(2020, 4th District – 50 Cal.App.5th 920, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 892)

Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc.
(2021, 2d District – 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 831)

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 211, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 579)

Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District
(2003, 4th District – 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 57)

Plaintiff sued the Port for a variety of business-related causes of action, alleging that the Port had interfered with an exclusive negotiating agreement between plaintiff and others concerning development of bayfront property. The Port filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the lawsuit arose from the Port’s review of plans for the development. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal plaintiff argued that no issue concerning the development project was before the Port in any official process when the Port commented on the project. Even if that were true, the appellate court says, the project was nevertheless a matter of public interest and therefore the Port’s comments were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Because the court also finds that plaintiff did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, it affirms the grant of the motion.

Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court
(2017, 1st District – 12 Cal.App.5th 1233, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 382)

Tukes v. Richard
(2022, 2d District – 81 Cal.App.5th 1, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)

Turnbull v. Lucerne Valley Unified School District
(2018, 4th District – 24 Cal.App.5th 522, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 488)

Turner v. Vista Pointe Ridge HOA
(2009, 4th District – 180 Cal.App.4th 676, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 750)

Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera
(2006, 1st District – 136 Cal.App.4th 164, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 21)

Plaintiff Tutor-Saliba Corporation sued the City Attorney of San Francisco for allegedly defamatory statements he made in a speech before the San Francisco Chinese-American Democratic Club regarding a lawsuit he had filed against plaintiff. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the alleged defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47(a) (“official duty privilege”), as well as under Government Code sections 821.6 and 820.2 (“prosecutorial immunity” and “discretionary immunity,” respectively). The appellate court affirmed.

Tuszynzka v. Cunningham
(2011, 4th District – 199 Cal.App.4th 257, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 63)

U-V

Ulkarim v. Westfield LLC
(2014, 2d District – 227 Cal.App.4th 1266, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 17)
USA Waste of California, Inc. v. City of Irwindale
(2010, 2d District – 184 Cal.App.4th 53, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 466)
United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
(2005, 6th District – 171 Cal.App.4th 1617, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 619)
U.S. Western Falun Dafa Association v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce
(2008, 1st District – 163 Cal.App.4th 590, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 710)
Urick v. Urick
(2017, 2d District – 15 Cal.App.5th 1182 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 125)
ValueRock TN Properties, LLC v. PK II Larwin Square SC LP
(2019, 4th District – 36 Cal.App.5th 1037, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 179)
Vargas v. City of Salinas (Salinas II)
(2011, 6th District – 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 244)
Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 776, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 246)
Vergos v. McNeal
(2007, 3d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647)
Vivian v. Labrucherie
(2013, 1st District – 214 Cal.App.4th 267, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)
Visher v. City of Malibu
(2005, 2d District – 126 Cal.App.4th 363, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 816)
City refused to process plaintiffs’ application for a “coastal development permit” because the city’s right to do so was the subject of a lawsuit by the city against the California Coastal Commission. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate to require the city to process their application. The city moved to dismiss the petition as a SLAPP. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion and refused to dismiss the petition. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that plaintiffs’ petition arose from the city’s refusal to process an application, not from the city’s lawsuit against the Coastal Commission. Although the city could not claim the protection of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, it was not left defenseless in preserving its case against the Coastal Commission.
Vogel v. Felice
(2005, 6th District – 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 350)
Two candidates for public office sought damages for libel and other torts based on statements posted on a public website. Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied on the grounds that the allegedly libelous statements could be shown to have exceeded privileges afforded under state law and the U.S. Constitution. The appellate court reverses. According to the court, plaintiffs’ claims fell squarely within the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute, requiring plaintiffs to show they could prevail on the merits, and plaintiffs failed to carry this burden.

W

Walker v. Kiousis
(2001, 4th District – 93 Cal.App.4th 1432, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 69)
Walker, a California Highway Patrolman, arrested Kiousis for suspected drunk driving. After pleading guilty, Kiousis filed a citizen complaint against Walker with the CHP, alleging conduct inappropriate for an officer. The CHP determined the complaint was without merit, and Walker then sued Kiousis for defamation. Civil Code section 47 generally creates an absolute privilege for statements made in the course of an official proceeding. However, section 47.5 creates an exception, allowing a peace officer to bring a defamation action against an individual who knowingly and maliciously files a false complaint about the office. Kiousis moved to dismiss Walker’s suit, arguing that Civil Code section 47.5 was unconstitutional and therefore his complaint to the CHP was protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the motion to strike, but on the grounds that Walker had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his lawsuit, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute, because he had not shown he sustained any actual damage. The appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion to strike, but on the grounds that section 47.5 is unconstitutional because it impermissably regulates speech based on the content of the speech.
Wallace v. McCubbin
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 744, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 909)
Wang v. Hartunian
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 744, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 909)
In a dispute over use of a vacant lot owned by Wang, Hartunian obtained a permanent restraining order against Wang. Hartunian summoned the police on several occasions to deal with alleged violations of the order, and on one occasion effected a citizen’s arrest of Wang. Wang sued Hartunian alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and abuse of process among other causes of action. Hartunian’s special motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP was granted by the trial court, which concluded that Wang was not likely to prevail on his claims. The appellate court reverses, holding that a citizen’s arrest is not a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Wang v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
(2007, 4th District -153 Cal.App.4th 790, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 575)
Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi
(2006, 3d District – 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 633)
Plaintiffs sued defendants for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and the court of appeal affirmed. On remand, the trial court awarded attorney fees for the work on appeal as well as for defendants’ challenge to plaintiffs’ undertaking to stay enforcement of the judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the award of attorney fees for the undertaking. The appellate court affirmed, finding that not permitting attorney fees for such efforts would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent to encourage continued participation in free speech and petition activities.
Weeden v. Hoffman
(2021, 4th District – 70 Cal.App.5th 269, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 262)
Weinberg v. Feisel
(2003, 3d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
Weinberg sued Feisel for defamation, alleging that Feisel told others that Weinberg had stolen a valuable collector’s item. Feisel moved to strike the complaint as a SLAPP, contending that his statements accused plaintiff of criminal activity and that criminal activity is always a matter of public interest. The trial court denied the motion, noting that Feisel never reported his suspicions to law enforcement officials and offered no evidence that he intended to file civil charges against plaintiff. The appellate court affirms. The court concludes that nothing in the record supports even an arguable suggestion that Feisel’s statements constituted speech protected by the First Amendment and therefore plaintiff’s causes of action were not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute. “Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his dispute with plaintiff was anything other than a private dispute….”
West v. Arent Fox LLP
(2015, 2d District – 237 Cal.App.4th 1065, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 729)
(modified 6/26/15)
White v. Lieberman
(2002, 2d District – 103 Cal.App.4th 210, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 608)
Attorney Lieberman represented homeowners in an action against White for slander of title, and the trial court found White liable. An appellate court reversed on the grounds the action was not supported by substantial evidence. Subsequently White sued Lieberman for malicious prosecution of the slander action. The trial court sustained Lieberman’s demurrer, but refused to consider Lieberman’s anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that it was moot in view of the successful demurrer. The appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in determining that Lieberman’s motion was moot. Because a malicious prosecution action is within the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute, and there is no possibility White can prevail, the only matter left for the trial court’s consideration is the amount of attorney fees.  (See Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, where the same issue is decided similarly.)
Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 352, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 321)
Widders v. Furchtenicht
(2008, 2d District – 167 Cal.App.4th 769, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 428)
Wilbanks v. Wolk
(2004, 1st District -121 Cal.App.4th 883, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 497)
Brokerage firm sued Wolk, alleging Wolk had made defamatory statements about its business integrity on her website, where Wolk publishes information for the general public about a special type of life insurance policy brokered by plaintiffs. Wolk moved to strike the claim for defamation as a SLAPP; the trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses the ruling. The court agrees that the anti-SLAPP statute applies in this case but concludes that plaintiffs showed the requisite probability of prevailing on their claim for defamation.
Wilcox v. Superior Court
(1994, 2d District – 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446)
Several court reporters brought suit against an alliance of court reporters, claiming unfair business practice and interference with plaintiffs’ existing contracts and prospective economic advantages. Defendants cross-complained for damages arising from a flyer circulated by the plaintiffs to raise money for litigation costs. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the cross-complaint is reversed.
Wilkerson v. Sullivan
(2002, 4th District – 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 275)
Plaintiffs appealed an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion but dismissed the appeal before it was decided. Defendant moved for an award of attorney fees in connection with the appeal but the court denied recovery of fees. Defendant appealed the denial. The court of appeal reverses, holding that defendants in a SLAPP are entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred in connection with defending the anti-SLAPP motion on appeal even when plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Once the trial court has granted an anti-SLAPP motion, the judicial decision that the action was a SLAPP remains intact unless reversed by the court of appeal and thus the defendant remains the “prevailing party” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 6 Cal.App.5th 822, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 724)
(Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded)
Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC
(2018, 1st District – 26 Cal.App.5th 239, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 25)Wisner v. Dignity Health
(2022, No. C094051)
Witte v. Kaufman
(2006, 3d District – 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 790)
Wittenberg v. Bornstein
(2020, 1st District – 50 Cal.App.5th 303, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 677)
Wong v. Jing
(2010, 6th District – 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747)
The trial court denied an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a dentist’s claims of libel per se and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, filed against two parents and Yelp!, arising from a negative review on Yelp! regarding the dentist’s treatment of the parents’ child.  The Court of Appeal held that six of the seven claims should have been dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law.
Wong v. Wong
(2019, 1st District – 43 Cal.App.5th 358, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 624)
Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
(2021, 2nd District – 68 Cal.App.5th 624, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 507)
Workman v. Colichman
(2019, 2d District – 33 Cal.App.5th 1039, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 636)
World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc.
(2009, 2d District – 172 Cal.App.4th 1561, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 227)

X-Y-Z

Xu v. Huang
(2021, 2nd District – 73 Cal.App.5th 802, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 558)
Yang v. Tenet Healthcare Inc.
(2020, 4th District – 48 Cal.App.5th 939, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 429)
Yeager v. Holt
(2018, 3d District – 23 Cal.App.5th 450, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 693)
Yee v. Cheung
(2013, 4th District – 220 Cal.App.4th 184, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 851)
York v. Strong
(2015, 4th District – 234 Cal.App.4th 1471, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 845)
Young v. Midland
(2022, Nos. A161843, A162784)
Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist.
(2012, 4th District – 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 119)
Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia
(2002, 1st District – 103 Cal.App.4th 298, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516)
Yu filed a class action on behalf of California residents against two banks for abuse of process and unfair business practice after the banks filed debt-collection actions in Virginia, their home state. The trial court sustained the banks’ demurrer to a third amended complaint but denied the banks’ concurrent anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds the latter was moot in light of the successful demurrer. The banks appealed. Both parties appealed. On appeal Yu argued that, because the anti-SLAPP motion was filed a year after the original complaint, it was untimely under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court holds that an amended complaint is a “complaint” under the anti-SLAPP statute (which requires that a special motion to strike be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint”), and, since the motion in this case was filed within 60 days of service of the third amended complaint, it was timely. In addition, the anti-SLAPP motion is no longer moot, the court concludes, in light of the court’s reversal of the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer. Nevertheless, the court affirms the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion but on the grounds that Yu’s claims “have sufficient potential merit to withstand Banks’ anti-SLAPP motion.” The case is interesting because the filing of a collection action in a distant state in effect deprives customers of the opportunity to defend themselves. Nevertheless, the court filing is a protected First Amendment activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, so only a determination that there is a likelihood the plaintiffs might prevail preserves the complaint for abuse of process.
Zhang v. Chu
(2020, 2d District – 46 Cal.App.5th 46, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 536)
Zhang v. Jenevein
(2019, 2d District – 31 Cal.App.5th 585, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 800)
Zhao v. Wong
(1996, 1st District – 48 Cal.App.4th 1114, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 909)
Note:  This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
Zhao sued Wong for slander, alleging that Wong had falsely accused her of murdering his brother in a newspaper article about a coroner’s investigation into the brother’s mysterious death and a contest in probate court over the brother’s will. The trial court granted a special motion to strike the complaint, saying that “if you make a comment about a judicial proceeding, that’s an act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition [or] free speech.” The appellate court reverses, concluding that the brother’s death, although newsworthy, did not rise to the level of a public issue protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Zucchet v. Galardi
(2014, 4th District – 229 Cal.App.4th 1466, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 363)****************************************

Superior Court, Appellate Division – Published Opinions:

O’Neil-Rosales v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.
(2017, App.Div.Super.Ct – LA – 11 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 723)

source

 

Federal SLAPP Cases Decided by U.S. District Courts in California

Opinions in the U.S. District Courts concerning the California Anti-SLAPP Statute (CCP § 425.16):

 

[note:  the list below also includes some non-California cases involving CCP § 425.16]

Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.
United States District Court, N.D. California. August 02, 2019 398 F.Supp.3d 578

Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.
525 F.Supp.3d 1088 – ND Cal 2021

Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc.
270 F.Supp.3d 343 – D Mass. 2017

Arenas v. Shed Media US Inc.
881 F.Supp.2d 1181 – CD Cal. 2011

Blatt v. Pambakian
432 F.Supp.3d 1141 – CD Cal. 2020

Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
722 F.Supp.2d 1148 – CD Cal. 2010

Browne v. McCain
611 F.Supp.2d 1062 – CD Cal. 2009

Bulletin Displays, LLC v. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
448 F.Supp.2d 1172 – CD Cal. 2006

Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
229 F.Supp.2d 962 – CD Cal. 2007

Choose Energy, Inc. v. American Petroleum Institute
87 F.Supp.3d 1218 – ND Cal. 2015

Clifford v. Trump
339 F.Supp.3d 915 – CD Cal. 2018

Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo
329 F.Supp.3d 1000 – ND Cal. 2018

Competitive Technologies. v. Fujitsu Ltd.
286 F.Supp.2d 1118 – ND Cal. 2003

This is a very complex case of patent infringement and numerous related causes of action, further complicated by issues of choice of law since the case was transferred from a district court in Illinois. Competitive Technologies filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike certain counterclaims asserted by Fujitsu. The court concludes that California law does not apply to Fujitsu’s counterclaims.

Condit v. National Enquirer, Inc.
248 F.Supp.2d 945 – ED Cal. 2002

The wife of U.S. Congressman Gary Condit sued the National Enquirer for libel based on statements published in two issues of the weekly publication. Defendant’s motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is denied on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statements did not concern a public issue and the plaintiff had demonstrated in her complaint that she could succeed on the merits.

Cox v. Mariposa County
445 F.Supp.3d 804 – ED Cal. 2020

Davis v. Hollins Law
942 F.Supp.2d 1004 – ED Cal. 2013

Dean v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
562 F.Supp.3d 928 – CD Cal. 2022

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Pandora Marketing, LLC
500 F.Supp.3d 1104 2020 WL – CD Cal. 2020

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Pandora Marketing, LLC
541 F.Supp.3d 1020 – CD Cal. 2021

Dickman v. Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP
982 F.Supp.2d 1157 – SD Cal. 2013

Drawsand v. F.F. Properties, L.L.P.
866 F.Supp.2d 1110 – ND Cal. 2011

E.D.C. Technologies, Inc. v. Seidel
225 F.Supp.3d 1058 – ND Cal. 12-6-2016

eCash Technologies v. Guagliardo
127 F.Supp.2d 1069 – CD Cal 2000

After defendant registered the domain name “ecash.com”, plaintiff filed federal claims of cyberpiracy, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of plaintiff’s registration of the “eCash” mark and alleging unfair or unlawful business practices by plaintiff under state law. The court granted plaintiff’s special motion to strike defendant’s state law counterclaims pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute inasmuch as the counterclaims were based on a letter from plaintiff’s counsel that was a communication related to pending litigation and therefore privileged under Civil Code section 47(b).

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty Ltd.
290 F.Supp.3d 923 – ND Cal. 2017

Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria v. Ceiba Legal, LLP
230 F.Supp.3d 1146 – ND Cal. 2-2-2017

Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir
544 F.Supp.2d 1044 – ED Cal. 2006

Flores v. Emerich & Fike
416 F.Supp.2d 885 – ED Cal. 2006

Plaintiff fruit growers filed a complaint alleging various forms of alter ego liability, fraudulent transfers, and the existence of a racketeering enterprise against the corporate defendants and the law firm and individual attorneys who represented them (Fike defendants). The Fike defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike several of the claims. The district court found that the section Civil Code 425.17 exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because it was strictly a private dispute, and the alleged actions of the Fike defendants did not involve marketing their services nor were representations made to potential consumers or to gain a competitive advantage. The court granted the motion to strike each cause of action because plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing on any of their claim.

Four Navy Seals & Jane Doe v. Associated Press
413 F.Supp.2d 1136 – SD Cal. 2005

Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Inc.
827 F.Supp.2d 1065 – ND Cal. 2011

Friedman v. DirecTV
262 F.Supp.3d 1000 – CD Cal. 2015

Gallagher v. Philipps
563 F.Supp.3d 1048 – SD Cal. 2021

Gamble v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
348 F.Supp.3d 1003 – ND Cal. 2018

Global Telemedia International, Inc. v. Doe 1
132 F.Supp.2d 1261 – CD Cal. 2001

Several individuals, using pseudonyms, posted remarks about a publicly traded telecommunications company in an Internet chat room. The company brought suit in state court, alleging trade libel, libel per se, interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage. Defendants removed the case to federal court. The court granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, after finding that the company had not satisfied its burden of showing a probability of success on its claims for trade libel and defamation. The court concluded that, given the context of publication and the “colorful and figurative language” of the postings, defendants’ statements about the company could not reasonably be understood to be factual.

Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc. Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc.
63 F.Supp.2d 1127 – ND Cal 1999

Globetrotter made statements to the market concerning the products of Elan and Rainbow and subsequently sued the two companies. The defendant companies brought a number of state-law counterclaims for damages due to Globetrotter’s statements. Globetrotter filed a special motion to strike the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP statute. The motion was denied on the grounds that statements by one company regarding the conduct of a competitor do not come within the statute’s protection of Petition Clause conduct.

Gottesman v. Santana
263 F.Supp.3d 1034 – SD Cal. 2017

Hanover Insurance Company v. Fremont Bank
68 F.Supp.3d 1085 – ND Cal. 2014

Harkonen v. Fleming
880 F.Supp.2d 1071 – ND Cal. 2012

Hart v. Larson
232 F.Supp.3d 1128 – SD Cal. 2017

Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow
445 F.Supp.3d 1042 – SD Cal. 2020 445 F.Supp.3d 1042

Hutton v. Law Offices of Collins & Lamore
668 F.Supp.2d 1251 – SD Cal. 2009

In re Bohrer
United States Bankruptcy Court, 628 B.R. 676 – SD Cal. 2021

In re Landes
United States Bankruptcy Court, 627 B.R. 144 _ ED Cal. 2021

In re Outlaw Laboratories, LP Litigation
352 F.Supp.3d 992 – SD Cal. 2018

Intel Corporation v. Seven Networks, LLC
562 F.Supp.3d 454 2021 – ND Cal. 2021

Johnson v. Altamirano
418 F.Supp.3d 530 – SD Cal. 2019

Kearney v. Foley & Lardner
553 F.Supp.2d 1178 – SD Cal. 2008

Lauter v. Anoufrieva
642 F.Supp.2d 1060 – CD Cal. 2009

Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
26 F.Supp.3d 1002 – SD Cal. 2014

Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.
94 F.Supp.3d 1128 – CD Cal. 2015

Mandel v. Hafermann
503 F.Supp.3d 946 – ND Cal 2020

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. San Diego County (“Manufactured II”)
606 F.Supp.2d 1266 – SD Cal. 2009

MCSI, Inc. v. Woods
290 F.Supp.2d 1030 – ND Cal. 2003

Plaintiff sued defendants for multiple causes, including defamation, based on “negative statements” about the company on an Internet forum for discussion of large, publicly traded corporations. Defendant Woods, who had posted the remarks, filed a special motion to strike the complaint against him under the the anti-SLAPP statute. The court denies the motion on the grounds that the remarks did not concern a public issue and therefore are not protected by the statute.

Mello v. Great Seneca Financial Corp.
526 F.Supp.2d 1024 – CD Cal. 2008

Metabolife International, Inc. v. Susan Wornick (“Wornick I”)
72 F.Supp.2d 1160 – SD Cal. 1999

Metabolife claimed that defendants, in statements on a television broadcast, committed defamation, slander, trade libel, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The trial court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. It concludes that defendants’ statements are protected by the First Amendment, either because they are true or represent opinion, and thus are covered by the anti-SLAPP statute. Because the court refuses to admit evidence proferred by Metabolife as expert evidence, Metabolife cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. (See the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in this case.)

Metabolife International, Inc. v. Susan Wornick (“Wornick II”)
213 F.Supp.2d 1220 – SD Cal. 2002

Order granting attorney fees to defendant who prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion.

National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
533 F.Supp.3d 802 – ND Cal. 2021

New.net, Inc. v. Lavasoft
356 F.Supp.2d 1090 – CD Cal. 2004

Parties are Internet software publishers. New.net writes software that is downloaded from the Internet to an individual’s computer without the knowledge or request of the computer owner. Lavasoft provides software that detects such programs and allows the computer owner to remove them. Plaintiff lost its bid for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Lavasoft from including New.net software in its list of removable programs. The court’s denial was based in part on the grounds that Lavasoft, through its software, was engaged in expression protected under the First Amendment. Defendant then filed an anti-SLAPP motion against all state-law claims, which the court granted.

Nicosia v. DeRooy
72 F.Supp.2d 1093 – ND Cal. 1999

Nicosia sued DeRooy for defamation in connection with statements published about Nicosia on DeRooy’s website. Nocosia was agent for the writer Jack Kerouac’s daughter Jan. The court granted a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP law, reasoning that the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure subject to the actual malice standard, had failed to plead actual malice with sufficient specificity, and therefore had failed to establish a probability that he would prevail in the case as required by the anti-SLAPP statute.

O’Handley v. Padilla
— F.Supp.3d —- N.D. California 2022

Penrose Hill, Limited v. Mabray
479 F.Supp.3d 840 – ND Cal. 2020

Physician’s Surrogacy, Inc. v. German
311 F.Supp.3d 1190 – SD Cal. 2018

Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Associates
946 F. Supp. 2d 957 – ND Cal. 2013

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress
214 F.Supp.3d 808 – ND Cal. 2016

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress
402 F.Supp.3d 615 – ND Cal. 2019

PLS.com, LLC v. National Association of Realtors
516 F.Supp.3d 1047 – CD Cal. 2021

Plumleigh v. City of Santa Ana
754 F.Supp.2d 1201 – CD Cal. 2010

Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.
872 F.Supp.2d 924 – ND Cal. 2012

Price v. Stossel
590 F.Supp.2d 1262 – CD Cal. 2008

Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos
359 F.Supp.3d 801- ND Cal. 2019

Ray Charles Foundation v. Robinson
919 F.Supp.2d 1054 – CD Cal. 2013
(Reversed by Ninth Circuit on non-anti-SLAPP issues; see 765 F.3d 1109, 1114)

Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International
— F.Supp.3d —- – ND Cal. 10-16-2017

Robinson v. Alameda County
875 F.Supp.2d 1029 – ND Cal. 2012

Rogers v. Home Shopping Network
57 F.Supp.2d 973 – CD Cal. 1999

Rogers sued the National Enquirer, alleging libelous statements about her in a published article. The newspaper filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court determined that the anti-SLAPP statute’s provision for staying discovery was inconsistent with Federal Rule of Procedure 56, and therefore postponed ruling on the motion until after the plaintiff had an opportunity to discover the identity of the purported confidential source of the published statements. “[I]f a defendant desires to make a special motion to strike based on the plaintiff’s lack of evidence, the defendant may not do so until discovery has been developed sufficiently to permit summary judgment under Rule 56. Once the nonmoving party has been given the opportunity to conduct discovery, the special motion can be heard….”

Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark
465 F.Supp.2d 1031 – SD Cal. 2009

Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino
875 F.Supp.2d 975 – ND Cal. 2012

Shack v. NBC Universal Media, LLC
467 F.Supp.3d 885 – CD Cal. 2020

Sharper Image Corporation v. Target Corp.
425 F.Supp.2d 1056 – ND Cal. 2006

Defendants brought counterclaims for tortious interference with economic advantage and unfair competition. Plaintiff filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants’ counterclaims were based on emails sent by plaintiff to retailers and media representatives who advertised the product in question, advising them of the lawsuit and asking them not to carry or advertise the product. The district court concluded that because the intended audience of the emails was actual or potential buyers or customers, or persons likely to repeat the statement to or otherwise influence an actual or potential buyer or customer, the counterclaims were exempt from the anti-SLAPP law, pursuant to Civil Code Section 425.17(c).

Shropshire v. Fred Rappoport Co.
294 F.Supp.2d 1085 – ND Cal. 2003

Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement and other causes of action, including interference with prospective economic advantage, after it terminated defendants’ rights to use a song in a video production. Defendants filed a special (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the complaints for interference with prospective economic advantage on the grounds that the complaints were based on statements made by defendant in anticipation of litigation with plaintiffs and therefore protected by California’s “litigation privilege” statute. The court concludes that, before it can decide on the motion, it must resolve the factual question whether defendant’s allegedly tortious statements were made “with a good faith belief in a legally viable claim and in serious contemplation of litigation” and therefore plaintiff must be permitted to conduct discovery on this point. Accordingly, the court does not apply the California anti-SLAPP statute’s stay on discovery.

Sikhs for Justice “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
144 F.Supp.3d 1088 – ND Cal. 2015

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.
723 F.Supp.2d 1205 – ND Cal. 2010

Sonoma Foods, Inc. v. Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC
634 F.Supp.2d 1009 – ND Cal. 2007

Stossel V. Meta
No. 21-cv-07385-VKD – ND California 2022

Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles
530 F.Supp.2d 1084 – CD Cal. 2008

Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
313 F.Supp.3d 1056 – ND Cal. 2018

Thomas v. Los Angeles Times Communications
189 F.Supp.2d 1005 – CD Cal. 2002

Thomas was the subject of a biography on his experiences during World War II. Thomas claimed to be a member of the French resistance and, as an agent of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps, to have uncovered evidence concerning Nazi concentration camp practices. After publication of the biography, an article critical of Thomas’s claims appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Thomas sued for damages, alleging defamation by implication. Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The district court grants the motion on the grounds that it is unlikely Thomas would prevail on the merits of his claim. The court analyzes in detail the Los Angeles Times article to reach the conclusion that it does not provide sufficient evidence of defamation by implication.

Tisdale v. City of Los Angeles
617 F.Supp.2d 1003 – CD Cal. 2009

Tobinick v. Novella
108 F.Supp.3d 1299 – SD Fla 2015

Troy Group, Inc. v. Tilson
364 F.Supp.2d 1149 – CD Cal. 2002

The Troy Group sued Tilson for defamation based on a statement Tilson made to his attorney in a lawsuit against Troy. Tilson filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The parties disputed whether Tilson’s statement was “in connection with an issue of public interest” as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. The court grants Tilson’s motion on the grounds that the public issue requirement was satisfied and Troy had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of its claim.

Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors
682 F.Supp.2d 1003 – ND Cal. 2010

TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc.
626 F.Supp.2d 1120 – C.D. Cal. 2009

UCP International Company Limited v. Balsam Brands Inc.
420 F.Supp.3d 966 – ND Cal. 2019

United States ex rel. Solis v. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
445 F.Supp.3d 786 – ED Cal. 2020

United Tactical Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.
143 F.Supp.3d 982 – ND Cal. 2015

Weiland Sliding Doors & Windows, Inc. v. Panda Windows & Doors, LLC
814 F.Supp.2d 1033 – SD Cal. 2011

Welker v. Law Office of Daniel J. Horwitz
626 F.Supp.2d 1068 – S.D. Cal. 2009

source

 

Federal SLAPP Cases Decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Batzel v. Smith
9th Circuit, 2003
333 F.3d 1018

 

Smith, a contractor hired by Batzel at her home, saw numerous “older European” paintings on Batzel’s walls and thought he overheard her say she was the granddaughter of one of Hitler’s deputies. He sent an e-mail to an agency involved in tracking down artwork stolen by the Nazis, and the agency posted the e-mail on its website. Batzel sued Smith and the director of the agency, Ton Cremers, for defamation. Cremers filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff was not likely to prevail on her complaint, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute, because he was exempt from liability for reposting Smith’s e-mail on the Internet under 47 U.S.C. 230 — a part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that sets limitations on liability under state law for postings on the Internet. The motion was denied by the district court on the grounds that section 230 did not apply to Cremers’ in this case. The 9th Circuit panel holds, as a threshold matter, that denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is an immediately appealable “final decision” in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1291. “Because California law recognizes the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute as a substantive immunity from suit, this court … will do so as well.” (Cf. United States, ex rel. Newsham et al. v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. below.) The court disagrees with the district court’s interpretation of section 230, vacates the district court’s denial of the special motion to strike, and remands for further hearings on questions of fact in light of its interpretation of section 230.

Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer
9th Circuit, 2005
403 F.3d 672

After Kremer became dissatisfied with hair restoration provided by Bosley, he started a website to criticize the service. Because the website address was “BosleyMedical.com,” Bosley sued Kremer for trademark infringement and cybersquatting under the federal Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Kremer filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Bosley’s state-law trademark claims. The district court granted the motion but the appellate court reverses. “An infringement lawsuit by a trademark owner over a defendant’s unauthorized use of the mark as his domain name does not necessarily impair the defendant’s free speech rights.” The court concludes that while a summary judgment motion might have been appropriate, an anti-SLAPP motion was not.

Breazeale v. Victim Services, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2017
878 F.3d 759

CoreCivic v. Candide Group
9th Circuit, 2022
46 F.4th 1136

Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2015
775 F.3d 1172

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp.
9th Circuit, 2013
706 F.3d 1009

Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2013
730 F.3d 946

EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2021
1 F.4th 1164

Estate of Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Interscope Records, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2008
515 F.3d 1019

Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir
9th Circuit, 2011
631 F.3d 1299

Falck Northern California Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC
9th Circuit, 2022
25 F.4th 763

Graham-Sult v. Clainos
9th Circuit, 2013
738 F.3d 1131

Graham-Sult v. Clainos
9th Circuit, 2014
756 F.3d 724

Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. CNN, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2014
742 F.3d 414

Greensprings Baptist Christian Fellowship Trust v. Cilley
9th Circuit, 2010
629 F.3d 1064

Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow
9th Circuit, 2021
8 F.4th 1148

Hilton v. Hallmark Cards
9th Circuit, 2010
599 F.3d. 894

Hyan v. Hummer
9th Circuit, 2016
825 F.3d 1043

Jordan-Benel v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2017
859 F.3d 1184

Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP
9th Circuit, 2009
590 F.3d 638

Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. (In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig.)
9th Circuit, 2013
724 F.3d 1268

Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
9th Circuit, 2013
715 F.3d 254
736 F.3d 1180

Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2017
853 F.3d 1004

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. County of San Diego
9th Circuit, 2011
655 F.3d 1171

Manufactured Home Communities., Inc. v. County of San Diego
9th Circuit, 2008
544 F.3d 959

Manzari v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.
9th Circuit, 2016
830 F.3d 881

Metabolife International, Inc. v. Wornick
9th Circuit, 2001
264 F.3d 832

In this lengthy and complex opinion (including a partial dissent) the court reverses in part and affirms in part the judgment of the district court (see district court decision). The district court had ruled that certain expert testimony on behalf of Metabolife could not be admitted; as a result, Metabolife was unable to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims for defamation and trade libel, and therefore the court granted the anti-SLAPP motions of all defendants. The appellate court reverses the district court’s decision to exclude the expert testimony because it found the reasons cited by the district court constitute abuse of discretion. In the court’s view, admitting the expert evidence would not enhance the ability of Metabolife to prevail on its claims against one defendant, a professor of medicine, and therefore the court affirms the decision to grant that defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. However, as to the other defendants — a TV reporter and her broadcaster — the court reverses the decision to grant their anti-SLAPP motions on the grounds that their edited broadcast of the professor’s statements about Metabolife failed to qualify as “protected speech” under the First Amendment because they deleted crucial qualifiers from the original statement. In its opinion the court rules that the discovery-limiting provision of the anti-SLAPP statute (Section 425.16, subd. g) conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), and therefore cannot be applied in federal court. The dissent points out that, despite the general prohibition, the state statute nevertheless allows a judge to permit discovery “for good cause” and therefore does not conflict with the federal rule.

Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar
9th Circuit, 2010
611 F.3d 590

PLANET AID, INC. v. REVEAL, CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE  REPORTING
(August 11, 2022, No. 21-15690)

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical
Progress
9th Circuit, 2018
890 F.3d 828

Price v. Stossel
9th Circuit, 2010
620 F.3d 992

Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2010
660 F.3d 1156

Safari Club International v. Rudolph
9th Circuit, 2017
862 F.3d 1113

Sarver v. Chartier
9th Circuit, 2016
813 F.3d 891

Thomas v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2005
400 F.3d 1206

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema (2002) does not undermine the court’s earlier decision in United States, ex rel. Newsham et al. v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. (see below) that the California anti-SLAPP motion to strike and entitlement to fees and costs are available in federal court.

Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Hirsh
9th Circuit, 2016
831 F.3d 1179

United States, ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.
9th Circuit, 1999
190 F.3d 963

In a case of first impression the court holds that subdivisions (b) and (c) of the California anti-SLAPP statute do not conflict directly with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus are applicable in federal diversity actions.

Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Communications Co.
9th Circuit, 2004
377 F.3d 1081

Verizon, as “incumbent local exchange carrier,” had several interconnection agreements with Covad, a competitive carrier. Verizon sued Covad for fraud, alleging that Covad had issued false “trouble tickets” as part of a scheme to reduce its own service costs. Covad asserted counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant Covad on Verizon’s claims and summary judgment for Verizon on Covad’s counterclaims. Defendants filed special motions to strike Verizon’s original complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, but the court granted Verizon leave to amend its complaint and deferred ruling on the motions to strike pending receipt of the amended complaint. The court then denied the motions to strike based on an analysis of the amended complaint. Both parties appealed the summary judgments; Covad appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms the district court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that “granting a defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike a plaintiff’s initial complaint without granting the plaintiff leave to amend would directly collide with Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)’s policy favoring liberal amendment.”

Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
9th Circuit, 2003
317 F.3d 1097

Plaintiffs filed a class action against a drug manufacturer, the American Psychiatric Assn. (APA), and Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), alleging that they promoted sales of Ritalin (used to treat hyperactivity) in violation of California’s unfair business practice laws. Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Procedure as well as an anti-SLAPP motion. The district court declined to rule on the anti-SLAPP motions before it had ruled on the motions to dismiss, deeming such motions premature. The district court first granted all of the motions to dismiss and then granted all of the anti-SLAPP motions. The appellate court agrees with the district court’s approach to ruling on the motions. It affirms the ruling on the anti-SLAPP motions of APA and CHADD on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ causes of action arise from speech protected by the First Amendment and plaintiffs had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. With respect to the drug manufacturer, however, because the court reverses the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, it also reverses the grant of that defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. (See also DuPont Merck Pharm. Co. v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, 4th District.)

Zamani v. Carnes
9th Circuit, 2007
491 F.3d 990

Bankruptcy Courts

Restaino v. Bah
U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, 2005
321 B.R. 41

Held: California’s anti-SLAPP statute is applicable in bankruptcy cases involving both federal questions and pendant state-law claims. The court agrees with the court in Globetrotter Software v. Elan Computer Group, Globetrotter v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc. (U.S. Dist. Ct. for No. Cal.; see above) that the anti-SLAPP statute is applicable to state-law claims but not to federal questions.

source

 

Lead Article: Application of State Anti-SLAPP Laws in Federal Court

I.  Introduction

Currently, more than 30 states have adopted laws aimed to protect First Amendment rights from so-called “SLAPP” suits.  SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” and SLAPP suits are lawsuits intended to silence or suppress free speech and other constitutionally protected activities.  A classic example of a SLAPP suit would be an oil company suing an environmental non-profit for defamation after the non-profit accused the oil company of being a polluter.

Additionally, several states have recently also passed or introduced legislation seeking to expand protections against SLAPP suits.  In New York, a broadened anti-SLAPP statute was enacted on November 11, 2020.  Washington state passed a new anti-SLAPP law on May 21, 2021 (SB 5009), with the state legislatures of Missouri (HB 1151), Kentucky (HB 1321), Indiana (HB 1459), and Iowa (HF 456) also looking to pass new anti-SLAPP legislation.

Conversely, although an increasing number of states have adopted anti-SLAPP laws, federal courts remain split on the issue of whether state anti-SLAPP laws are applicable in federal courts.  A number of federal district and appellate courts have reached inconsistent holdings as to whether pleading requirements of state anti-SLAPP laws conflict with those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Because the implications of these inconsistencies are broad and far-reaching, this article analyzes (i) the background of and recent developments relating to California’s anti-SLAPP statute; (ii) the recent adoption and development of anti-SLAPP legislation in other states; and, (iii) the split among federal courts as to the applicability of state anti-SLAPP laws.

 

II.  California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute and Recent Developments

A.  Unique Procedural Mechanisms Available Under California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

As a means to combat nuisance lawsuits that are intended to chill free speech, state legislatures have introduced legislation offering increased protection from those suits.  California became the first state to introduce anti-SLAPP legislation in 1992, and by far has the most robust body of anti-SLAPP case law.  California’s anti-SLAPP law provides for a “screening mechanism” by which the plaintiff who brings an action arising out of protected speech or petition activity, at the outset of the SLAPP suit, must “make a prima facie showing [verified under oath] which would, if proved at trial, support a judgment in [the plaintiff’s] favor.” Wilcox v. Super. Ct., 27 Cal. App. 4th 809, 823 (1994); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1).  Specifically, once the moving defendant has demonstrated that the plaintiff’s cause of action arises from “protected” speech or activity, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”  Kyle v. Carmon, 71 Cal. App. 4th 901, 907 (1999).

This screening process, in effect, functions much like a motion for summary judgment, with the defendant being able to challenge the merits of a plaintiff’s case.  One difference, however, is that the filing of a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute in California automatically stays discovery.  See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp., 239 Cal. App. 4th 1174, 1185 (2015); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(g). Another difference is that, unlike a motion for summary judgment, an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss places the burden on a plaintiff to demonstrate that they possess a “legally sufficient claim which is ‘substantiated,’ that is, supported by competent, admissible evidence.”  College Hospital v. Super. Ct., 8 Cal. 4th 704, 718-719 (1994).  If plaintiff is unable to satisfy their burden, then defendant is entitled to dismissal of the SLAPP suit, and an award of the attorneys’ fees and legal costs incurred defending the action.  See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal. 4th 1106, 1121-1123 (1999); Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628, 644 (1996); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c).  This “reverse” standard, which  places the burden of proof on the plaintiff is intended to (1) allow defendants to obtain quick dismissals of claims arising out of certain “protected” activities, enumerated in California’s anti-SLAPP statute; and (2) discourage lawsuits filed with the intent to chill free speech (i.e. First Amendment-related conduct) by imposing the threat of significant legal fees and costs required to successfully oppose the motion so early in litigation (as well as the risk of paying for the other party’s legal fees and costs).

In addition, unlike with a motion for summary judgment, a defendant is entitled to an automatic right of appeal for the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, and a stay of all trial court proceedings affected by the motion.  Hewlett-Packard, 239 Cal. App. 4th at 1185-86.  “This means that however unsound an anti-SLAPP motion may be, it will typically stop the entire lawsuit dead in its tracks until an appellate court completes its review.”  Id. at 1185.  Because of the heightened protections for defendants bringing motions to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, these motions are subject to potential abuse.  As one appellate court has discussed, the statute provides a “free time-out” from further litigation in Court “by entitling the unsuccessful movant to immediately appeal the denial of such a motion,” even a relatively weak motion “which wholly lacks any merit.” Id. at 1184-85.

B.  Elements of a Motion To Strike Under Section 425.16(b)

California courts apply a two-pronged test in evaluating whether to grant an anti-SLAPP motion to strike.  Under the first prong, defendant must establish that the activity giving rise to a plaintiff’s suit arises from one of the following four specific categories that the California legislature defines as “protected” activity:

  1. Any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.
  2. Any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.
  3. Any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.
  4. Any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

 

If the defendant establishes that a claim arises out of protected activity, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the claim contains minimal merit.  If the plaintiff does not, the claim will be dismissed.

California courts have broadly construed these areas of protected activity.  For example, in Wilson v. CNN, the California Supreme Court recently observed that “to insulate the exercise of free speech rights against chilling  litigation, the Legislature has defined protected activity to  include not only the act of speaking, but ‘any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of constitutional speech rights on matters of public interest.’”  Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 871, 893 (2019).  (Interestingly enough, though, on July 29, 2021 the California Supreme Court drew a line between speech, which it considered protected, and actions arising from the speech, which it considered to be unprotected—thereby limiting the scope of § 425.16(b).  Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Sys., 11 Cal. 5th 995, 1026 (2021).)  The breadth of anti-SLAPP statutes across states vary, but like California’s statute, most other anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants with protections for speech made in any forum, as well as a mandatory award of costs and attorney fees for successful defendants.  Most, but not all, states with anti-SLAPP legislation explicitly grant protection for speech made in connection with any issue of public interest or concern.  Moreover, states are increasingly reforming and broadening the scope of anti-SLAPP legislature; New York, for example, recently updated its anti-SLAPP statute to grant protection for “any communications in a public place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.”

III.  Federal Courts Wrestle with Applicability of Anti-SLAPP Laws

Federal courts are in conflict on whether state anti-SLAPP laws provide primarily substantive, or procedural remedies.  If considered procedural, anti-SLAPP laws would conflict with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore be inapplicable in federal court.  For more than two decades, the Ninth Circuit has held that the California anti-SLAPP law is primarily substantive and therefore does apply in federal court.  See, e.g., United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that California’s anti-SLAPP statute and the Federal Rules “can exist side by side . . .  without conflict”) (quotation omitted).

Recently, however, the Second Circuit held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute did not apply in federal court.  See La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2020).  There, the Court held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable in federal court because it conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56.  Id.  According to the Second Circuit, the question that federal courts must answer in deciding whether state anti-SLAPP statutes apply in federal courts is “whether ‘a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure answer[s] the same question as the [special motion to strike].’”  Id. at 87 (quoting Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328, 1333  (D.C. Cir. 2015) (alteration in original)).  If so, the Federal Rule governs, unless it violates the Rules Enabling Act.  Id.

The Second Circuit’s La Liberte decision heavily relied on the Eleventh Circuit’s recent holding in Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc. that the pleading standard set forth by California’s anti-SLAPP statute “abrogates [the already-established federal court pre-trial pleading] entitlement . . . by requiring the plaintiff to establish that success is not merely plausible but probable.”  Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc., 910 F.3d 1345, 1353 (11th Cir. 2018).  The Carbone decision also found that California’s anti-SLAPP statute conflicted with Federal Rule 56, which permits summary judgment only if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  Id.

The Ninth Circuit, however, remains unpersuaded by the other circuits.  In Clifford v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit held that Texas’s anti-SLAPP law did in fact apply in federal court.  Clifford v. Trump, 818 Fed. App’x 746, 747 (9th Cir. 2020).  The court held that there was no contradiction with state and federal law.  That decision contradicted a recent Fifth Circuit ruling in Klocke v. Watson, where the court  held “that the TCPA does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.”  Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 2019).  Specifically, the Fifth Circuit’s analysis focused on whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [and Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute] “‘answer the same question’ when each specifies requirements for a case to proceed at the same stage of litigation.”  Id. at 245.  The Fifth Circuit opined that Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Nos. 12 and 56 do in fact answer the same question, namely “the circumstances under which a court must dismiss a case before trial.”  Id.  The court also found that Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute imposed “additional procedural requirements not found in the federal rules.”  Id.  “Because the [Texas anti-SLAPP statute’s] burden-shifting framework imposes additional requirements beyond those found in [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 12 and 56 and answers the same question as those rules, the state law cannot apply in federal court.”  Id.  The court in Clifford addressed this contradiction, noting “[T]he reasoning of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion cannot be reconciled with our circuit’s anti-SLAPP precedent, compare Newsham, 190 F.3d at 972 (‘[T]here is no indication that [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 8, 12, and 56 were intended to ‘occupy the field’ with respect to pretrial procedures aimed at weeding out meritless claims.’) with Klocke, 936 F.3d at 247 (‘Rules 8, 12, and 56 provide a comprehensive framework governing pretrial dismissal and judgment.’).”  Clifford, 818 Fed. App’x at 747.  The court in Clifford further reasoned that they were bound to follow their own precedent – which “required [the court] to apply the [The Texas Citizens Participation Act],” commonly referred to as the Texas anti-SLAPP statute.  Id.

A similar split exists amongst U.S. District Courts, which have, in the past several years, issued a string of inconsistent rulings as to whether state anti-SLAPP statutes apply in federal diversity cases.  Compare Harrington v. Hall Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 2016 WL 1274534 (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2016) (finding a statute providing for attorneys’ fees and costs under Nebraska’s anti-SLAPP statute substantive, and therefore consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby allowing for the filing of a motion for attorneys’ fees under the state anti-SLAPP statute), with Unity Healthcare, Inc. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 308 F.R.D. 537 (D. Minn. 2015) (finding that Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable because it conflicted with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56), appeal dismissed, 2016 WL 11339506 (8th Cir. 2016).

These split decisions within the federal courts have led to further confusion and continued forum shopping – which courts may find objectionable, principally, because such “shopping” between courts may offend traditional notions of justice and, as a practical matter, deference to particular courts over others may result in a backlog of cases in these same courts, thereby delaying the timely dispensation of justice in non-related cases.

IV.  Conclusion

Amid all of this confusion at the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court has, surprisingly, refused to weigh in on the controversy.  Rather, the Supreme Court has persistently refused to hear cases involving state anti-SLAPP laws.  See, e.g., Yagman v. Edmondson, 723 Fed. App’x 463 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 823 (2019); Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1446 (2019). As recently as February 2021, the Supreme Court again refused to address the issue, denying review in the Clifford v. Trump case, which presented the conflict between the Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit’s holdings on the applicability of Texas’s anti-SLAPP law in federal diversity actions.  It should therefore be expected that federal courts will continue to issue inconsistent rulings on the matter, leading to further forum shopping, as state legislatures continue to adopt more and broader anti-SLAPP legislature, thereby giving rise to a greater number of anti-SLAPP motions being brought in federal diversity cases.source

 

]]> Anti-SLAPP Law Cases – Case Law Summaries & Citings https://goodshepherdmedia.net/anti-slapp-law-cases-case-law-summaries-citings/ Thu, 07 Aug 2025 15:07:26 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=19596 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fort-Minor-Remember-the-Name.mp3

Anti-SLAPP Law Cases – Case Law Summaries & Citings

Anti-SLAPP laws, which stand for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are designed to protect individuals from lawsuits intended to silence or intimidate them for exercising their rights to free speech and petition. 

What are SLAPPs?

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): These are lawsuits filed with the primary goal of silencing or intimidating someone who is exercising their right to free speech or petition, rather than with the intention of winning the case. 

Motivations: SLAPPs are often brought by wealthy individuals or corporations against their critics, aiming to bankrupt them through the cost and time of litigation. 
Chilling Effect:  The threat of a SLAPP lawsuit can have a chilling effect on free speech, as people may be afraid to speak out or participate in public matters for fear of being sued. 
What are Anti-SLAPP Laws?
Purpose: Anti-SLAPP laws aim to prevent SLAPPs by providing a mechanism for defendants to quickly dismiss lawsuits that are essentially designed to intimidate or silence them. 
How they work:
  • Motion to Strike: Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, a defendant can file a motion to strike the lawsuit, arguing that it is a SLAPP suit. 
  • Burden of Proof: The burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff (the person who filed the lawsuit) to demonstrate that they have a high probability of prevailing in the case. 
  • Dismissal and Fees: If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden, the lawsuit is dismissed, and the defendant may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs. 

  • California’s Anti-SLAPP Law California’s anti-SLAPP law is codified in California Civil Procedure Code § 425.16. 

Key Benefits of Anti-SLAPP Laws:
  • Protecting Free Speech: Anti-SLAPP laws help protect the right to free speech and public participation. 
  • Preventing Abuse of the Legal System: They discourage the use of lawsuits as a tool for intimidation and silencing.
  • Reducing Litigation Costs: By allowing for early dismissal of SLAPP suits, they reduce the costs and time associated with lengthy and expensive litigation.
  • Encouraging Public Participation:By protecting individuals from SLAPPs, these laws encourage people to participate in public matters without fear of retaliation. 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Influence on Anti-SLAPP Issues

 These cases support the principle that those who misuse courts to punish speech can be sanctioned or stopped – anti-SLAPP statutes put that principle into routine practice at the state level.

The United States Supreme Court has not directly reviewed a state anti-SLAPP statute, and there is currently no federal anti-SLAPP law. However, several landmark Supreme Court decisions form the constitutional backdrop that anti-SLAPP laws enforce. These cases often involve defamation and First Amendment rights, and they guide lower courts in balancing reputation versus free speech. Here are a few key rulings:

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) – The cornerstone of modern defamation law. The Supreme Court unanimously held that public officials (later extended to public figures) suing for defamation must prove the statement was made with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth​ casp.net

    . This ruling was explicitly driven by a desire to prevent an environment where critics of official conduct could be silenced by lawsuits. The case itself was essentially a SLAPP-type scenario: Southern officials were suing civil rights activists/newspapers to deter criticism of segregation practices. Sullivan elevated First Amendment protections, stating that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open”, even if it includes vehement, caustic, and sometimes erroneous attacks. This principle is at the heart of anti-SLAPP: most SLAPP targets are speaking about public issues or figures, and Sullivan ensures such speech has breathing space. Many anti-SLAPP victories (especially where plaintiffs are public figures, like Nygård or Trump University) are a direct application of Sullivan’s malice rule. In effect, Sullivan set a high bar that often causes SLAPP suits to fail – anti-SLAPP statutes complement it by allowing early determination of whether that bar is met.

  • Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) – A unanimous Supreme Court protected an outrageous parody published in Hustler. The magazine ran a fake ad poking lurid fun at Reverend Jerry Falwell, a public figure, implying he had a drunken incestuous rendezvous (all clearly a grotesque joke). Falwell sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress since he couldn’t meet defamation standards (the ad was so over-the-top no one believed it literally). The Supreme Court ruled public figures cannot do an end-run around First Amendment protections by suing for emotional distress when the speech is about them and isn’t false factual defamation​ quinnemanuel.com

    This case is often cited i anti-SLAPP contexts to emphasize that satire, parody, or harsh humor – even if deeply offensive – is protected speech so long as it doesn’t assert specific false facts. Falwell had no remedy because the parody was not reasonably seen as true. This reinforces what California courts have held: vigorous caricature or opinion (like comparing someone to a cartoon or using hyperbole) is shielded. In anti-SLAPP motions, defendants often invoke Hustler v. Falwell to argue that claims like IIED or other torts cannot proceed when based on the same protected speech underlying an unsuccessful defamation claim.

  • Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) – Here, the Supreme Court clarified that simply labeling a statement as “opinion” does not make it immune, if the statement implies an assertion of objective fact. In Milkovich, a journalist wrote that a high school coach “lied” under oath. The Court found that could be provable as true or false (either he perjured or not) and therefore was potentially defamatory despite being in a column. While Milkovich is sometimes cited by plaintiffs to attack an “opinion” defense, it actually aligns with how California courts parse speech: they look at the totality of circumstances to see if a reasonable reader would take a statement as factual​ quinnemanuel.com

    ​.Anti-SLAPP case law in CA (like Summit Bank, Chaker, Bently Reserve) has refined this by examining context to distinguish fact from opinion​

    Milkovich ensures that defendants can’t escape liability if they couch a false fact as “in my opinion, X is a thief” – that still implies a factual basis that can be proven false. Thus, while anti-SLAPP protects opinions, Milkovich serves as a reminder: if a statement implies a clear defamatory fact (e.g., criminal behavior) and that implication is provably false, it’s not protected. California courts hew to this by allowing cases like Bently (where “sociopathic landlord caused deaths” was specific enough to imply factual assertions) to survive anti-SLAPP​ caselaw.findlaw.com

  • Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) – Snyder concerned a tort suit against the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing a military funeral with vile anti-gay signs. The deceased soldier’s father sued for IIED. In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court held that the protesters’ speech, although hurtful, was on matters of public concern (morality, military policy, etc.) and took place in public, so it was protected by the First Amendment casp.net

    . The Court emphasized that speech on public issues “occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” This case resonates with anti-SLAPP because many SLAPPs involve emotionally charged speech on public issues (for example, online posts accusing someone of wrongdoing in a public controversy). Snyder tells courts to protect even extreme expressions of opinion on public matters. California’s anti-SLAPP law explicitly protects conduct “in connection with an issue of public interest,” and Snyder reaffirms that if the subject is of public concern, the speaker gets broad latitude. It’s a powerful precedent for SLAPP defendants: even intentionally inflicting emotional distress through speech is not actionable if the speech is about a public issue and not a disguised factual allegation. In essence, Snyder extends the logic of Sullivan/Falwell – robust protection for speech on public affairs – even to private figure plaintiffs (Snyder himself was not a public figure, but the topic was public).

  • Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983) – A less famous case, but one directly addressing retaliatory lawsuits: The Supreme Court recognized that baseless lawsuits filed to retaliate against someone’s exercise of rights (there, employees’ union activities) can be enjoined in the labor law context​ casp.net

    . While not a defamation case, this decision acknowledged the concept of a “retaliatory lawsuit” as an unfair labor practice if without merit. It foreshadowed anti-SLAPP laws by noting that the right to petition (file lawsuits) does not protect suits that are a mere sham to cover retaliation. Similarly, Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures (1993) established a test for sham litigation (lawsuits that are objectively baseless and intended to harm a rival)​ casp.net

    These cases support the principle that those who misuse courts to punish speech can be sanctioned or stopped – anti-SLAPP statutes put that principle into routine practice at the state level

In conclusion, while the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on a state anti-SLAPP statute, its First Amendment jurisprudence strongly undergirds the anti-SLAPP framework. Truth, opinion, and public concern are recurring touchstones in both arenas. Anti-SLAPP laws essentially provide a procedural fast-track to apply these constitutional protections. The cases above (from Sullivan to Snyder) ensure that freedom of speech – especially on public matters – remains protected against the chilling effect of costly litigation, and anti-SLAPP statutes are a state-level commitment to the same end.

Important Recent Anti-SLAPP Case Summaries

Below are recent published opinions involving California’s anti-SLAPP statute in defamation and social-media/content contexts. Each summary lists the case name, court, decision date, and key points about how anti-SLAPP was applied to public commentary, defamation claims, or reposted/repurposed content on social platforms.

California Courts of Appeal

  • Jackson v. Mayweather, Jr. – California Court of Appeal (Mar. 27, 2017, published). Floyd Mayweather’s ex-partner sued him for defamation, false light, and public disclosure of private facts after he posted on Facebook/Instagram that their breakup was due to her secretly getting an abortion, and discussed her cosmetic surgeries on a radio show. The Court of Appeal held Mayweather’s posts were about a celebrity dispute of public interest (celebrity gossip about abortion and plastic surgery) and thus met anti-SLAPP prong one law.justia.com

    On prong two, the court found Jackson could not likely prove the statements false or unlawfully invasive: the core facts (her abortion and surgeries) were essentially true or newsworthy, and any false details (e.g. who ended the relationship) were not defamatory​ lexology.com

     The court therefore struck the defamation and related tort claims under the anti-SLAPP statute, although it allowed a narrow part of the privacy claim (posting her sonogram) to proceed​ lexology.com

  • Cross v. Facebook, Inc. – California Court of Appeal (Aug. 9, 2017, published). A musician and his companies sued Facebook after users created pages impersonating and defaming him. Facebook’s refusal to remove the pages led to claims including defamation, negligence, and breach of contract. The Court of Appeal held Facebook’s alleged conduct—hosting and not removing user content—fell within an anti-SLAPP “act in furtherance of free speech” on a public issue (the posts concerned dangers of fatigued tour-bus drivers, a matter of public interest)

    The court then ruled the plaintiffs had no probability of prevailing because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes platforms from liability for third-party content​ blog.ericgoldman.org

    Thus, all of the claims were struck under anti-SLAPP, underscoring that a social media platform cannot be sued for failing to remove user posts in these circumstances.

  • Woodhill Ventures LLC v. Yang – California Court of Appeal (July 14, 2021, published). An “internet celebrity” took to Twitter and a podcast to lambast a bakery that made his child’s birthday cake with candy decorations resembling pills. The bakery sued for defamation, and the defendant invoked anti-SLAPP, claiming his online rant was about a public safety issue (“candy confusion” for kids). The Court of Appeal denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the posts were not made in connection with a genuine public issue 

    cccba.org

    . Using the FilmOn context analysis, the court decided the purpose and context of the tweets/podcast were merely to shame or punish the bakery, not to inform the public of a safety concern​ cccba.org

    . Because the speech was essentially a personal gripe (aimed at “whipping up” viewers for revenge) rather than commentary on a matter of public interest, the anti-SLAPP statute did not protect it​ cccba.org

U.S. Federal Courts in California

  • Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow – U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir. (Aug. 17, 2021). One America News Network (plaintiff) sued MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for defamation after Maddow’s show repeated a report that an OAN contributor “is also being paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda.” Maddow moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the anti-SLAPP dismissal of the suit​

    . Applying California defamation law, the court held Maddow’s statement was figurative and hyperbolic speech, not a literal assertion of fact​

    . In context – an opinionated TV segment preceded by true facts about the reporter’s ties to Sputnik – the “Russian propaganda” comment was obvious exaggeration that no reasonable viewer would take as provably false fact​ cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

    . Because the challenged remark was protected by the First Amendment as opinion/rhetorical hyperbole, it could not be defamatory, and the anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted.

  • CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Group, LLC – U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir. (Aug. 30, 2022). CoreCivic, a private prison company, sued activist Morgan Simon and her firm (Candide Group) for defamation over online articles (Forbes.com) linking CoreCivic to the family-separation policy and claiming it lobbied for harsher immigration laws. Candide filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The Ninth Circuit first reaffirmed that California’s anti-SLAPP special motion does apply in federal court (consistent with 9th Circuit precedent)​

    . It then examined the statements under Rule 12(b)(6) standards (no discovery yet)​

    . The court concluded that CoreCivic failed to plausibly plead falsity or defamation regarding the family-separation statements​ law.justia.com

    . Those statements – saying CoreCivic profited from detaining immigrants and was “at the heart” of the family separation controversy – were either substantially true or not explicitly about illegal conduct, and thus not actionable as pled. The Ninth Circuit accordingly upheld the anti-SLAPP dismissal of CoreCivic’s defamation claims related to family separations​ law.justia.com

    . (Note: A portion of the case addressing an implied-defamation theory about CoreCivic’s lobbying was vacated and remanded, as one judge believed a jury could find an implied false message that CoreCivic held children in its facilities​ caselaw.findlaw.com

U.S. Supreme Court

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan – U.S. Supreme Court (Mar. 9, 1964). A landmark defamation case arising from a newspaper ad about civil rights protests. The Supreme Court held that public officials who sue for defamation over statements about their official conduct must prove the statements were made with “actual malice” – i.e. with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth​ casp.net

    . This high bar protects vigorous public debate by preventing libel suits from silencing commentary on public officials’ performance​ casp.net

    . Sullivan’s actual malice standard underpins many anti-SLAPP outcomes in cases of public interest speech.

  • Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell – U.S. Supreme Court (Feb. 24, 1988). The publisher of Hustler ran a raunchy parody ad that depicted minister Jerry Falwell in an incestuous rendezvous. Falwell sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress (and libel), but the Supreme Court ruled for Hustler. Even outrageous or offensive parody is protected by the First Amendment when it targets a public figure, so long as it does not state actual facts in falsehood​ supreme.justia.com

    . The Court emphasized that speech does not lose protection just because it is meant to ridicule; public figures cannot recover for emotional distress from satire absent a false statement of fact made with actual malice​ supreme.justia.com

    . This case illustrates robust protection for creative content (like satire) about public figures, foreshadowing anti-SLAPP principles shielding harsh criticism and caricature.

  • Snyder v. Phelps – U.S. Supreme Court (Mar. 2, 2011). The family of a fallen soldier sued picketers from the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress and other torts after the church members protested near the soldier’s funeral with highly offensive signs. The Supreme Court held that the church’s protest was fully protected speech because it addressed matters of public concern (military and morality) in a public place​ en.wikipedia.org

    . Speech on a public issue, in a public forum, cannot be the basis for tort liability for emotional distress, even if it is hurtful or outrageous​ en.wikipedia.org

    . In effect, the First Amendment trumped the tort claims. Snyder shows the high level of protection given to public commentary on social or political issues – the type of protection anti-SLAPP laws aim to reinforce by quickly dismissing lawsuits targeting such speech.

Anti-SLAPP Law Cases – Involving Newspapers and Social Medial Case Law Summaries & Citings

Here are many examples where newspapers, magazines, or media outlets published true but offensive or disturbing commentary or opinions, and courts upheld their legality under First Amendment protections or anti-SLAPP laws, as long as they were factually accurate or clearly opinions, not lies. Here are some notable ones:

1. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) – U.S. Supreme Court

  • What happened: Hustler published a satirical ad mocking Reverend Jerry Falwell, suggesting (in parody form) he had an incestuous encounter with his mother

  • Truth vs. Offensiveness: It was clearly labeled as satire and not meant to be true. It was offensive, vulgar, and cruel—but not actionable.

  • Ruling: Supreme Court said public figures can’t sue for emotional distress caused by parody or opinion unless it’s a false statement of fact made with actual malice.

  • Why it matters: Even horrendous satire or commentary about public figures is protected speech, if there’s no provable lie.


2. Snyder v. Phelps (2011) – U.S. Supreme Court

  • What happened: Westboro Baptist Church picketed a Marine’s funeral with signs saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Fags Doom Nations.”

  • Truth vs. Offensiveness: Their protest was hate-filled but based on their genuine religious and political beliefs.

  • Ruling: Supreme Court ruled 8–1 that their offensive public speech on matters of public concern (military policy, religion,) was fully protected.

  • Why it matters: True or sincerely held beliefs—even if horrific—can’t be punished if they don’t lie and relate to public issues.


3. Herring Networks v. Maddow (2021) – 9th Circuit

  • What happened: Rachel Maddow said on-air that a journalist working for OAN “is being paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda.”

  • Truth vs. Offensiveness: Based on a factual Daily Beast article, her commentary was harsh opinion built on disclosed facts.

  • Ruling: Court said her remarks were protected hyperbole, not actionable lies.

  • Why it matters: Strong opinions that interpret or exaggerate public facts are often safe under anti-SLAPP and First Amendment law.


4. Cross v. Facebook, Inc. (2017) – California Court of Appeal

  • What happened: Users posted impersonating and defaming a musician, alleging misconduct. Facebook refused to take the pages down.

  • Truth vs. Offensiveness: The posts were part of a broader discussion on tour-bus driver fatigue—a public safety issue.

  • Ruling: Facebook’s platform choices were protected under anti-SLAPP, and under Section 230.

  • Why it matters: Offensive posts on matters of public concern—even if painful to a person’s reputation—can be protected.


Local Columnist / Op-Eds Examples (not specific court cases, but legal context holds):

  • Editorials or columns that criticize politicians, condemn social groups, or make bold cultural statements often fall into this category.

  • If the writer states true facts or expresses opinions, even if it’s mean, offensive, or unpopular, it’s protected.

  • Think of NYT op-eds on war, crime, or race that spark backlash but stay within the bounds of truth and protected speech.

Anti-SLAPP Defamation Cases in California and Federal Courts

Below is a compilation of published opinions involving anti-SLAPP motions in defamation lawsuits across the California Supreme Court, California Courts of Appeal, U.S. District Courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court (First Amendment cases). These cases feature defamation claims arising from newspaper articles, online journalism, social media posts, and other commentary/opinion content — often harsh but either true or non-actionable opinion. Each entry summarizes the parties, court, outcome, and notable reasoning or precedent.

Overview of Key Cases

Case (Year) Court Key Issue Outcome/Precedent
Briggs v. Eden Council (1999) CA Supreme Court Landlords sued nonprofit for “harassing” statements to gov’t Anti-SLAPP granted – Statute must be construed broadly; covers any petitioning speech, regardless of public significance​ casp.net

Established broad application of anti-SLAPP.
Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) CA Supreme Court Defamation over republished email on Internet Anti-SLAPP granted – Internet re-publisher immune under CDA §230; confirmed anti-SLAPP protects online speech​ casp.net
Gates v. Discovery Comm. (2004) CA Supreme Court Ex-convict sued TV network for crime docudrama Anti-SLAPP granted – Crime report was newsworthy/public issue and First Amendment-protected, so plaintiff’s privacy claim could not succeed​ casp.net\
FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify (2019) CA Supreme Court Business sued over online report labeling it as risky content Anti-SLAPP granted – Clarified “issue of public interest” test: context of speech (audience, speaker, purpose) matters​ cccba.org

​ only at private clients not of public interest. Established contextual analysis for prong one.
Seelig v. Infinity (2002) CA Court of Appeal Reality TV participant sued radio hosts for insults Anti-SLAPP granted – Radio commentary calling plaintiff names (e.g. “gold-digger”) was opinion/hyperbole, not provably false fact​ casp.net

Suit dismissed as speech on public forum about a public controversy (reality TV).
Chaker v. Mateo (2012) CA Court of Appeal Man sued ex’s mother for online posts calling him a “deadbeat dad” and fraud Anti-SLAPP granted – Posts on consumer forum about plaintiff’s character and business practices were on a public forum and of public interest (warning to others); statements were general insults or true (he was a convicted criminal)​ caselaw.findlaw.com

Non-specific vitriol and true facts are not defamatory.
Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) CA Court of Appeal Bank sued ex-employee over anonymous internet rants Anti-SLAPP granted – Posts on a “Rants and Raves” forum about the bank were in a public forum on matters of public interest (banking practices)​ cccba.org

Context (online rant with hyperbolic tone) meant statements were likely opinion, not factual assertions.
Nygård Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) CA Court of Appeal Fashion mogul sued ex-employee and magazine for tell-all article Anti-SLAPPgranted – Plaintiff Peter Nygård was a public figure, and article about his business and lifestyle was an issue of public interest. Plaintiff could not show falsity or actual malice; differing personal experiences and opinions on his management style aren’t provably false​ caselaw.findlaw.com
Herring Networks (OAN) v. Maddow (2020) U.S. District (S.D. Cal), aff’d 9th Cir. OAN network sued MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for on-air comment it “really literally is paid Russian propaganda” Anti-SLAPP granted – Court found Maddow’s statement was rhetorical opinion based on disclosed facts (an article reporting an OAN reporter’s ties to Russia). Thus, it “cannot serve as basis for defamation”  loeb.com

Dismissal affirmed; OAN ordered to pay Maddow’s legal fees.
La Liberte v. Reid (2020) U.S. 2nd Circuit (federal) Private individual sued Joy Reid (MSNBC) for posts falsely accusing her of yelling racist slurs (viral photo context) Defamation claim dismissed, but anti-SLAPP inapplicable in federal court – The court deemed plaintiff a limited-purpose public figure and found no actual malice (one post was opinion, the other lacked malice). It declined to apply California’s anti-SLAPP law in federal diversity court​ caselaw.findlaw.com

illustrating a circuit split (contrast with 9th Cir.).
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Public official sued newspaper over civil rights ad (false statements) Established “actual malice” rule – Public officials (and later, public figures) must prove defendant’s knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard​

casp.net

. Landmark protection for harsh criticism of public figures, forming the constitutional backdrop for anti-SLAPP protections.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Jerry Falwell sued Hustler for outrageous parody ad (claimed emotional distress) Speech protected – Even extreme or “outrageous” parody about a public figure is protected by the First Amendment; public figures cannot use tort claims to bypass defamation standards. This case, while not an anti-SLAPP motion, underscores strong protection for satirical opinion.
Snyder v. Phelps (2011) U.S. Supreme Court IIED suit against protesters who picketed a military funeral with offensive signs Speech protected – In a 1st Amendment ruling, the Court held that even hurtful speech on public issues (here, signs on public matters) is protected from tort liability. Highlights the principle that speech on public issues cannot be punished simply for being outrageous – a rationale in spirit with anti-SLAPP aims​ casp.net

(Above, “CA Court of Appeal” cases are California intermediate appellate courts; U.S. District refers to federal trial courts applying California law; U.S. Supreme Court entries provide relevant First Amendment context, as there is no federal anti-SLAPP statute.)

California Supreme Court – Notable Anti-SLAPP Rulings

Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) – California Supreme Court – In the first California Supreme Court case interpreting the anti-SLAPP statute, landlords Dan and Judy Briggs sued a tenant-rights nonprofit (ECHO) for defamation and other torts, claiming the organization’s staff made false, harsh statements about them (calling Mr. Briggs “racist,” “redneck,” etc.) to government agencies​ casp.net

. The trial court struck the suit under CCP §425.16, but the Court of Appeal reversed, opining the speech wasn’t of “public significance.” The Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the anti-SLAPP dismissal, holding the statute “shall be construed broadly” and applies to “any lawsuit arising from the exercise of petition or free-speech rights”, regardless of the issue’s prominence​ casp.net

. In other words, a defendant need not show the speech was of great public importance – reporting a grievance to government or the press is protected even if it’s a local or private issue. Briggs set a precedent that anti-SLAPP protections are to be interpreted expansively, thereby protecting a wide range of outspoken commentary from retaliatory suits. The Briggses were ordered to pay over $425,000 in attorney fees for filing a SLAPP​ casp.net

Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) – California Supreme Court – This landmark case combined anti-SLAPP law with internet speech immunity. Ilena Rosenthal, an online activist, forwarded an email on an Internet newsgroup that contained allegedly defamatory accusations against two doctors. The doctors sued Rosenthal for defamation. Rosenthal responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing her act of republishing someone else’s words online was protected. The trial court agreed and struck the suit; the Court of Appeal reversed in part. The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit entirely, holding that Rosenthal was immune under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act for reposting third-party content casp.net

. Thus, her anti-SLAPP motion was granted in full. This case is notable for protecting those who repost or share articles/posts online – even if the content is harsh or potentially false – so long as they did not originally create the defamation. The decision underscored that online forum hosts and users cannot be treated as publishers of others’ statements, and it affirmed that such suits should be stricken early under anti-SLAPP law. (Notably, the court awarded Rosenthal over $430,000 in attorney fees on remand​ casp.net

Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc. (2004) – California Supreme Court – This case involved the republishing of truthful information in a creative format. Wayne Gates, who had been convicted years prior as an accessory to murder, sued Discovery Communications after the network aired a docudrama about the crime. Gates claimed the TV program defamed him and invaded his privacy by casting him in a negative light. Discovery’s anti-SLAPP motion (following a partially denied demurrer) was originally denied by the trial court, which oddly questioned whether the show was “newsworthy.” The Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court reversed that denial, ordering the claims stricken. The Supreme Court held that Discovery’s program was speech on a matter of public interest (crime and punishment) fully protected by the First Amendment​

Because Gates’ criminal role was a matter of public record and the program’s content was essentially true, he “would [be] impossible to prevail” on a privacy claim​ casp.net

This ruling is an important precedent confirming that media outlets can dramatize or republish public court records or true events without fear of defamation/privacy suits – and that anti-SLAPP is an appropriate vehicle to swiftly dismiss such suits. It emphasizes that truthful, public-interest content – even if unflattering – cannot give rise to liability.

FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) – California Supreme Court – While not a defamation case per se, FilmOn significantly clarified the anti-SLAPP “public issue” requirement in a way that affects all media-related SLAPP cases. FilmOn, an online video platform, sued an internet analytics company (DoubleVerify) for issuing reports to subscribers (advertisers) labeling FilmOn’s content as potentially pirated or adult. DoubleVerify’s anti-SLAPP motion argued its reports were free-speech commentary on matters of public concern (online content quality). The trial court denied the motion, and the case reached the Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court devised a new contextual test: even if speech involves a topic of public interest, courts must consider the “context” and “purpose” of the speech – i.e. who the speaker is, the audience, and whether the speech was intended to participate in or promote discussion of a public issue​

Here, DoubleVerify’s confidential client reports, though about piracy (a public topic), were not aimed at informing the public or engaging in debate; they were a private business communication. The Supreme Court held such speech wasn’t in connection with a public issue in the anti-SLAPP sense, so the motion was properly denied​ cccba.org

​FilmOn is important for journalists and online speakers because it prevents stretching of anti-SLAPP’s scope to purely private communications, while still protecting genuine public discourse. The decision guides lower courts to distinguish true public commentary (e.g., a news article or tweet to the world) from speech that, despite touching on a public subject, isn’t contributing to any public conversation.

(Other California Supreme Court decisions have further shaped anti-SLAPP law 


Navellier v. Sletten (2002) permitting use of anti-SLAPP even when defendants are accused of litigation-related speech;
Flatley v. Mauro (2006) carving out extortionate speech as unprotected;
Park v. CSU (2017) refining what it means for a claim to “arise from” protected speech;
Wilson v. CNN (2019) addressing anti-SLAPP in employment cases. However, the above cases are most relevant to defamation in media, online, and creative content contexts.

California Courts of Appeal – Defamation & Opinion in Media/Social Media

California’s appellate courts have produced dozens of published anti-SLAPP opinions, many involving journalists, publishers, or internet speakers sued for commentary. Below are key examples that illustrate how courts handle harsh criticism that is true or constitutionally protected opinion:

  • Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) – A classic early case where a participant on the reality TV show “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” sued radio talk show hosts who ridiculed her on-air. The hosts had invited the plaintiff, Katya Seelig, for an interview which she declined; in response, they lampooned her on their popular morning show, calling her derogatory names (like “chicken butt” and “gold-digger”) and joking she was after money caselaw.findlaw.com

    . Seelig alleged defamation and emotional distress. The defendants filed both a demurrer and an anti-SLAPP motion. Result: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and struck the suit​

    . It held the radio commentary was covered by anti-SLAPP (speech on a public forum about a matter of public interest – reality TV and a quasi-celebrity participant). Crucially, the court found that none of the insults or remarks were actionable statements of fact – they were “rhetorical hyperbole” or opinions not provably true or false​ casp.net

    . This case set a precedent that unflattering opinions or name-calling, especially in entertainment media discussion, cannot support a defamation claim. Even if the speech was harsh or unfair, as long as it did not assert provably false facts, it was protected. Seelig thus exemplifies anti-SLAPP’s role in guarding vigorous criticism and satire, especially toward those in the public eye (even a reality show contestant).

  • Wong v. Jing (2010) – This case involved a Yelp review and is often cited in “online review” defamation contexts. A father was unhappy with his child’s dentist, Dr. Jing, and his wife posted a negative review on Yelp. The review included claims that the dentist’s treatment and the office’s use of a certain chemical caused their son to get sick, and it warned other parents. Dr. Jing sued for defamation, asserting the post falsely implied she poisoned a child. The Court of Appeal, however, found the Yelp post squarely within anti-SLAPP protection: it was a statement made on a public Internet forum about the quality of medical/dental services – an issue of concern to many consumers​

    . On the merits, the court concluded that most of the statements were either true, or opinion based on the speaker’s own experience (and thus not provably false) caselaw.findlaw.com

    . For instance, saying a child “got sick after a visit” was considered a protected statement of personal experience or opinion, not a verifiable claim that could be proven false. The defamation claims were struck. Wong v. Jing underscores that online reviews, even if strongly negative, enjoy broad protection – especially when they involve matters of public interest like health and consumer information. As long as the reviewer doesn’t knowingly make false assertions of fact, their critical opinions cannot be litigated. This case has served as an important pro-defendant precedent for Yelp and other social media criticism suits​ content.next.westlaw.com

  • Chaker v. Mateo (2012) – This is a notable “CyberSLAPP” case protecting sharp online accusations in a personal dispute. In Chaker, a man (Chaker) who ran a self-improvement business found himself the target of scathing posts on RipoffReport.com and Topix.com, authored by his ex-girlfriend’s mother (Mateo). Mateo’s posts accused Chaker of being a “deadbeat dad,” “criminal,” “womanizer” and suggested people should be cautious dealing with him​ lawpipe.com caselaw.findlaw.com

    . Chaker sued for defamation. The Court of Appeal ruled the posts were protected speech in connection with an issue of public interest – even though the dispute was personal – because the content warned others about Chaker’s character and business practices, essentially a consumer forum report about an individual’s trustworthiness​ lawpipe.com

    . On the second prong, the court found Chaker couldn’t show a probability of prevailing: the statements were largely non-actionable opinion or true. Notably, the court observed that calling someone a “deadbeat dad” or saying he “uses people” is general, hyperbolic critique – not a specific factual claim that can be proven false​

    . The only arguably factual assertion was that Chaker “is a criminal,” but that statement was true (he had a prior criminal conviction)​

    . Thus, Mateo’s anti-SLAPP motion was granted, wiping out the lawsuit​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . Chaker v. Mateo is frequently cited to show that vitriolic online rants are often considered protected opinion, especially on informal internet forums, and even accusations that might sound like facts are not defamatory if the plaintiff actually has such a negative attribute (here, a criminal record) or if the context makes it clear they are conveying personal judgment. This case broadened the “public interest” concept to include warnings about an individual’s behavior posted on public websites, reflecting the courts’ recognition that online communities discussing individuals can be participating in a form of public discourse.

  • Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) – In this case, anonymous internet speech and context were key. Summit Bank sued an unknown poster (later identified as Rogers, a disgruntled former employee) who had made derogatory comments about the bank and its CEO on an Internet message board (Craigslist’s “Rants and Raves”)

    . The posts were laced with crude language and accusations about the bank’s stability and management. The Court of Appeal held the statements met the anti-SLAPP public interest threshold: they were made on a public website and concerned a business and its leadership – matters that could affect investors, customers, or employees cccba.org​

    . More importantly, when analyzing defamation merit, the court heavily emphasized the online context: the posts were on a forum literally labeled “Rants and Raves,” written in a “diatribe” style with “lack of formality, poor grammar and spelling,” and clearly more of an angry vent than an assertion of fact​

    . The court noted that in such a setting, readers are less likely to view the statements as factual – it’s understood as blowing off steam. Indeed, following precedents like Krinsky (2008) and Chaker, the Summit Bank court found the comments to be non-actionable opinions and hyperbole given the context​

    . It reversed the trial court and ordered the suit stricken under anti-SLAPP. This case is a touchstone for the proposition that anonymous internet speech is not automatically immune, but when it appears in forums known for opinionated, unverified chatter, it will often be deemed protected opinion rather than defamation caselaw.findlaw.com

    . The ruling protected the poster’s First Amendment right to criticize his former employer vehemently online, and Summit Bank had to pay the poster’s legal fees. Summit Bank thus illustrates how courts filter defamation claims through the lens of the medium and style of speech, often finding that what might look defamatory on paper is innocuous ranting in its actual internet context.

  • Cross v. Cooper (2011) – This case highlights protection for republishing public information. A real estate seller (Cooper) discovered that a neighbor was a registered sex offender (information publicly available via Megan’s Law). Cooper’s realtor mentioned this fact in a flyer or to potential buyers, and the offended neighbor (Cross) sued for defamation and interference, claiming the implication he was dangerous was false. The Court of Appeal found the anti-SLAPP statute applied because crime and community safety are issues of public interest, and the communication was made in a public forum context (disclosures in a home sale)​

    . On the merits, the court held that merely truthfully identifying someone as a registered sex offender cannot be defamatory – it was a true statement from an official public registry, and warning neighbors or buyers was protected activity in furtherance of public safety (also likely protected by California’s privileges). The anti-SLAPP motion was granted, and the case was dismissed​ casetext.com

    . Cross v. Cooper is often cited alongside cases like GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton to emphasize that sharing true, publicly available information – even if stigmatizing – is protected speech on a matter of public concern. It also shows how anti-SLAPP dovetails with other speech protections (here, truth and statutory privilege) to defeat lawsuits aimed at silencing people who share critical facts on social media or other platforms.

  • Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) – A celebrity/business figure SLAPP case, showing that being famous doesn’t shield one from criticism. Famed fashion executive Peter Nygård sued a former employee (Timo) and a Finnish magazine after Timo gave an interview describing Nygård’s “abusive” behavior and extravagant lifestyle. Nygård alleged defamation and breach of a confidentiality agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the entire suit was a SLAPP: (1) The article’s content – the inner workings of an international fashion company and its colorful owner – involved public figures and was of public interest (Nygård employed thousands and cultivated a public image of wealth and success)​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . (2) Nygård could not show a likelihood of prevailing. The court reasoned that the disparaging statements were largely subjective opinions or personal impressions of Nygård’s conduct (e.g. describing the boss as tyrannical) – different employees had different experiences, but that “does not render Timo’s statements false or defamatory.”​

    . Any factual assertions were not provably false or were not materially damaging. Moreover, Nygård, as a public figure, had to show actual malice, which he couldn’t: there was no evidence the magazine or Timo knew any statement was false or seriously doubted it​

    . The appellate court affirmed the strike of all claims​

    . Nygård is a noteworthy precedent confirming robust anti-SLAPP protection for tell-all stories and exposés about famous individuals or companies, especially when the plaintiff tries to plead around defamation by adding contract or interference claims (the court also noted a California Labor Code policy that employees can discuss workplace conditions​

    ). The case is frequently cited for the principle that an issue can be in the “public interest” if the public is merely interested in it – here, the public’s curiosity about a flamboyant fashion mogul’s behavior sufficed​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . It also reassures media that interviews and critical profiles of high-profile figures are protected, absent clear evidence of falsity and malice.

  • Daniel v. Wayans (2017) – This case merges social media, comedy, and creative process. Actor/comedian Marlon Wayans was sued by an actor (Pierre Daniel) who had been hired as an extra on a Wayans movie. Wayans had tweeted a side-by-side photo comparing Daniel (who is African-American with a unique afro hairstyle) to a cartoon character (“Cleveland Brown” from Family Guy), captioning it with a joking slur as if in character. Daniel sued for racial harassment and misappropriation, claiming the tweet and on-set teasing were injurious. Wayans invoked anti-SLAPP, arguing his tweet and jokes were part of his creative process in making a comedy film and commentary on a public platform (Twitter)​

    . The Court of Appeal agreed with Wayans. It held that his actions were “in furtherance of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest” – namely, the creation of a comedic work and the ensuing social media discussion

    . Wayans’s million-follower Twitter feed was deemed a public forum, and an actor in his film was of public interest due to Wayans’s public persona​

    . On the merits, the court found the plaintiff’s claims could not succeed: the tweet was protected speech (opinion/joke) and not severe enough to be harassment as a matter of law. The anti-SLAPP motion was granted, tossing the case​

    . The significance of Daniel v. Wayans is its recognition that social media posts by artists can be protected as part of creative expression on matters of public interest (in this case, comedic commentary and the public’s interest in a celebrity’s social media) ​aalrr.com

    . It also illustrates that even where a plaintiff feels personally attacked (here by a racial epithet, albeit used in a comedic context), the courts will carefully weigh First Amendment interests. The decision was a win for artistic freedom and social media speech, affirming that a joke made to over a million followers about a matter of public entertainment is shielded from tort liability, even if it’s edgy or offensive. (Notably, the California Supreme Court had granted review, signaling interest in the case, but the review was later dismissed – leaving the pro-speech appellate ruling in place​ casetext.com

  • Bently Reserve L.P. v. Papaliolios (2013) – One of the few cases where an anti-SLAPP motion by a defendant failed in a defamation context, it highlights the flip side: when harsh accusations are treated as factual assertions, a plaintiff can proceed. In Bently, a wealthy property owner (Bently) and his company were accused in anonymous online reviews of effectively terrorizing and evicting tenants, even implying their actions caused deaths of some elderly tenants​

    . The poster (Papaliolios) claimed “the building is owned by a sociopathic narcissist” and gave detailed accounts of evictions and tenant departures, suggesting nefarious conduct​

    . Bently sued for libel, and Papaliolios filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing the Yelp posts were opinions on a public forum about a matter of public interest (landlord-tenant issues in San Francisco). The Court of Appeal acknowledged the public forum/public interest prong was met (tenant treatment in a large city is of public concern) but held that Bently demonstrated a probability of prevailing on libel​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . Unlike in Chaker or Summit Bank, these posts included specific factual allegations (evictions without cause, harassment leading to deaths) that were “reasonably susceptible of [being proven] true or false.” 

    . The court found that a reasonable reader could take the statements literally (despite some colorful language) and that Bently produced evidence to show many claims were false​

    . Because false statements of fact (especially accusing someone of causing death or serious wrongdoing) are not protected, Papaliolios’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied and the lawsuit could proceed​

    . Bently Reserve is an important counterpoint case, underscoring that anti-SLAPP laws do not license defamation: if a speaker’s words assert specific, verifiably false facts that injure reputation, the speaker can still be held to account. The case reinforces the “sine qua non of defamation is falsehood”​

    – thus, while courts broadly protect opinion and true or hyperbolic speech, they will allow defamation claims past the SLAPP filter when concrete lies (e.g., “these owners illegally evicted tenants and caused deaths”) are alleged with sufficient supporting detail​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . For media defendants, Bently Reserve is a reminder to stick to opinion or ensure factual claims are true; for plaintiffs, it demonstrates that anti-SLAPP is not an absolute shield if you can make a strong showing of falsity and resulting damage.

In summary, California’s appellate courts have vigorously enforced anti-SLAPP protections for speech related to newspapers, magazines, blogs, and social media. From these cases, a few themes emerge:

  • Opinions, epithets, and hyperbole – especially on internet forums or talk shows – are generally not actionable. Cases like Seelig, Chaker, Summit Bank, and Wong all emphasize that free speech allows rude or sharp-tongued criticism. If the tone or context signals that a statement is one’s personal view or exaggeration, courts will classify it as non-defamatory opinion​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . The threshold for a plaintiff to show such speech is defamatory is very high, especially when made in informal online settings or entertainment contexts.

  • Truth or substantially true statements (even if unflattering) are protected. Defendants who accurately report on public records or truthfully warn others (as in Cross v. Cooper or Gates v. Discovery) will prevail. The anti-SLAPP law pairs with California’s truth defense and privileges (Civil Code §47) to dispose of suits over true content quickly​ casp.net

    .

  • Public interest and public figure status are construed broadly. Content about services, businesses, or anyone who has sought public attention (even in a limited sphere) often qualifies as an “issue of public interest.” For instance, a Yelp review of a dentist, a forum post about a bank, or gossip about a fashion tycoon were all treated as matters the public has a legitimate interest in​ caselaw.findlaw.com lawpipe.com

    . Likewise, plaintiffs like Nygård or Chaker were deemed public or limited-purpose public figures, raising their bar to prove defamation (actual malice)​ caselaw.findlaw.com lawpipe.com

    . This reflects California’s tendency to err on the side of free discussion, even about individuals who aren’t traditional politicians or celebrities.

  • Creative and satirical works get special solicitude. Courts recognize the importance of creative freedom – e.g., Daniel v. Wayans protected a comedian’s improvisational joke on social media as part of making a film​ aalrr.com

    . Fictional portrayals or parodies are also usually covered by anti-SLAPP if sued. Even when individuals feel personally attacked (as in Wayans or Seelig), California courts tend to protect the creator or commentator to avoid a chilling effect on artistic expression.

  • Clear falsity and provable harm are required to overcome anti-SLAPP. When plaintiffs have survived an anti-SLAPP motion (as in Bently Reserve), it is because they could show specific factual claims that are false and defamatory (e.g., accusing someone of serious misconduct that can be disproven)​

    caselaw.findlaw.com

    . This aligns with fundamental defamation law (false statement of fact causing damage), but anti-SLAPP raises the bar by forcing plaintiffs to present evidence early. Weak defamation claims – where a plaintiff is essentially upset about someone’s harsh opinion – will be thrown out at the outset.

Federal Court Applications (U.S. District Courts) – California Anti-SLAPP in Action

Although anti-SLAPP laws are state statutes, they frequently come up in federal courts (usually when a defamation case with state-law claims is filed in or removed to federal court). California’s law has been applied in federal courts within the Ninth Circuit for years​ gtlaw.com

, though other circuits disagree on applicability. Below are examples of how federal courts (especially in California) have handled anti-SLAPP motions in defamation and SLAPP suits, touching on online speech and journalism:

  • Thomas v. Los Angeles Times (C.D. Cal. 2002) – Dr. Melvin Thomas, who had been the subject of a laudatory biography about his WWII experiences, sued the L.A. Times for an article casting doubt on his claims (implying some of his war stories were exaggerated or false). He alleged defamation by implication. The federal court granted the newspaper’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding the reporting to be protected speech on a public issue (history and war heroism) and concluding that Thomas was unlikely to prevail on the merits​

    . The court dissected the article and found it did not actually assert false facts about Thomas – it simply presented conflicting evidence about his war record​

    . Without a provably false defamatory assertion, Thomas’s claim failed. This case, like many in federal court, shows anti-SLAPP’s utility in disposing of suits against mainstream media: even implication or nuanced reporting can be shielded if the gist isn’t provably false or if the plaintiff is a public figure who can’t show malice​ casp.net

  • Nicosia v. De Rooy (N.D. Cal. 1999) – One of the early internet defamation cases: an author’s agent, Nicosia, sued an online journalist (De Rooy) who had published web articles accusing Nicosia of fraud and unethical behavior in handling the estate of Beat writer Jack Kerouac’s daughter. The federal court granted De Rooy’s anti-SLAPP motion​

    . It reasoned that Nicosia was at least a limited public figure in the controversy over the literary estate, and he hadn’t shown a likelihood of proving the statements were false or made with malice​

    . Some statements were deemed opinion (“suspected fraud”) and others, while factual-sounding, lacked evidence of falsity. The court’s dismissal (and award of fees) demonstrated early on that online investigative reporting and watchdog commentary would get anti-SLAPP protection just like traditional journalism. It also underscored the burden on public figures to come forward with proof of falsity and malice to avoid dismissal casp.net

  • Makaeff v. Trump University (S.D. Cal./9th Cir. 2013) – This high-profile case arose from a lawsuit where a consumer, Tarla Makaeff, wrote online and to authorities complaining that “Trump University” (a real estate seminar business) was a scam. Trump University counter-sued her for defamation. Makaeff invoked California’s anti-SLAPP law in federal court. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit held that Trump University was a limited-purpose public figure in the debate over its business practices, requiring it to show Makaeff acted with actual malice​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . Trump University could not meet that bar – Makaeff’s complaints had a factual basis (other students had similar experiences), and there was no evidence she knew anything she said was false. The Ninth Circuit thus ordered the defamation counterclaim stricken under anti-SLAPP (and later, Makaeff was awarded her attorney fees). This case was significant not only for its result – protecting a consumer’s right to blow the whistle on a company’s shady practices – but also for the Ninth Circuit’s affirmation that California anti-SLAPP applies in federal court (a stance that has since been consistent in the Ninth Circuit​ gtlaw.com

    ). It also generated an influential concurring opinion about public figure status in the internet age. Makaeff exemplifies how anti-SLAPP can empower individuals (even against well-known figures like Donald Trump’s business) to speak out about potential fraud without fear of a protracted lawsuit.

  • Herring Networks, Inc. (OAN) v. Maddow (S.D. Cal. 2020) – We touched on this in the table: One America News Network (OAN), a conservative news channel, sued MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow for defamation after she satirically said on-air that OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” Maddow’s team removed the case to federal court and filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the motion and dismissed the case, ruling that Maddow’s statement was protected opinion based on disclosed facts​. Maddow had been commenting on a Daily Beast article that revealed one OAN employee also wrote for a Kremlin-owned outlet – she clearly presented that source and then hyperbolically riffed on it on her show​

    . The court found no reasonable viewer would interpret Maddow’s quip as an assertion that the network was officially paid by Russia; rather, it was a colorful exaggeration for effect​ loeb.com

    . Because the challenged remark was not provably false (it was an opinion drawn from true facts), OAN’s defamation claim had no minimal merit and was struck. The court also noted the context – a political commentary on a public issue – firmly put the speech under anti-SLAPP protection. OAN was ordered to pay about $250,000 in attorney’s fees to Maddow​ lawandcrime.com

    . On appeal, the Ninth Circuit in 2021 affirmed the dismissal (agreeing the statement was opinion and/or hyperbole)​ lawprofessors.typepad.com

    . Herring Networks v. Maddow illustrates federal courts’ alignment with California courts in protecting political commentary and media criticism as opinion. It also shows anti-SLAPP’s might in federal court: not only was the case tossed early, but the plaintiff faced a hefty fee bill for bringing a SLAPP. This outcome likely deters other deep-pocketed entities from suing over similar political commentary.

  • La Liberte v. Reid (E.D.N.Y./2nd Cir. 2020) – This case is a cautionary tale about the limits of state anti-SLAPP in federal courts outside the Ninth Circuit. The facts read like a social media age drama: Roslyn La Liberte was photographed angrily confronting a teen at a California city council meeting about immigration. The photo went viral with claims she shouted racist slurs (comparisons were made to civil rights era hatred). MSNBC commentator Joy Reid reposted the photo and echoed the accusations in two posts to her large Twitter/Instagram audience​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    ​

    . In reality, the teen later stated La Liberte had not yelled slurs. La Liberte sued Joy Reid for defamation in New York federal court (diversity jurisdiction). Reid invoked California’s anti-SLAPP law (since the posts concerned a California event involving a California plaintiff). The district court decided to apply anti-SLAPP and struck the claim, finding La Liberte was a limited public figure in the sanctuary-law debate and hadn’t pled actual malice, and that one of Reid’s posts was non-actionable opinion (comparing La Liberte’s image to an infamous segregationist photo)​ caselaw.findlaw.com

    . The court even granted Reid anti-SLAPP fees. However, on appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the anti-SLAPP ruling: it held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute (particularly its requirement to show probability of success to avoid dismissal) conflicts with Federal Rules (12 and 56) and cannot apply in federal court in that circuit​ lawreview.uchicago.edu

    . They therefore vacated the “strike” and fee award​ law.justia.com

    . Importantly, the Second Circuit still dismissed the lawsuit on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds – essentially agreeing La Liberte’s complaint failed to state actual malice or actionable defamation​ case-law.vlex.com

    . So Joy Reid still won, but without anti-SLAPP. La Liberte demonstrates a split: in some federal courts (Second, D.C. Circuits, etc.), defendants cannot formally use anti-SLAPP motions, though they can often achieve the same result through a regular motion to dismiss. The case also underscores First Amendment standards: the court found La Liberte, by injecting herself in a heated public controversy (speaking at a council meeting on immigration laws), became a limited-purpose public figure, and Reid’s commentary – though harsh and arguably incorrect – was not published with malice and was partly protected opinion caselaw.findlaw.com

    . Thus, even without anti-SLAPP, the traditional free-speech protections led to dismissal. This outcome aligns with the spirit of anti-SLAPP: public figures facing media criticism must meet a high bar to recover. It’s worth noting that, had this case been in California (or the Ninth Circuit), anti-SLAPP would have applied and Joy Reid would likely have been entitled to fees; in New York, she won but without a fee-shift. As a result, media defendants in states without anti-SLAPP or in circuits rejecting state anti-SLAPP in federal court lose a powerful tool for early dismissal and fees – which is why a federal anti-SLAPP law has been proposed​ rcfp.org

    .

(Other notable federal cases: Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group (D.C. Cir. 2015), where the D.C. Circuit similarly held D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law inapplicable in federal court, even as it affirmed dismissal of a defamation claim by a public figure; CoreCivic v. Candide Group (9th Cir. 2022), reaffirming anti-SLAPP’s applicability in Ninth Circuit and striking a private prison company’s defamation suit over social media criticism​

gtlaw.com

; and Tobinick v. Novella (11th Cir. 2015), a case of a doctor suing a skeptic blogger where the court applied California anti-SLAPP to some claims but not others due to choice-of-law analysis. Each reflects the intersection of anti-SLAPP with federal practice and the strong constitutional baselines that often independently dispose of SLAPP-type suits.)

here is a great resource:

SLAPP Cases Decided by the California Supreme Court

California State Courts  Opinions in the U.S. District Courts concerning the California Anti-SLAPP Statute (CCP § 425.16):

California Supreme Court
(alphabetical by case name)

 

California Courts of Appeal

(Cases listed A – Z)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

Superior Court, Appellate Division – Published Opinions

 

Federal Courts

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Selected cases (alphabetical by case name)

 

SLAPP Cases Decided by the California Courts of Appeal

The following is a list of published SLAPP opinions decided by the California Courts of Appeal and a brief summary of some of them.   Clicking on the name of the case will lead to the text of the opinion.  For most opinions issued on or after April 3, 2013, clicking on the case name will lead to the text of the opinion on Google Scholar.

 

#

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg
(2003, 2d District – 107 Cal.App.4th 568, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 789)
Plaintiff sued Steinberg for business damages, alleging that Steinberg had colluded with plaintiff’s former employee to promote legislative action adverse to plaintiff’s business by facilitating meetings between the former employee and representatives of professional associations. The trial court granted Steinberg’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that the cause of action was conduct “in furtherance of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue” and plaintiff had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its complaint, including counts of inducing breach contract and inducing breach of fiduciary duties. The appellate court affirms.
569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc.
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 212Cal.Rptr.3d 304)
(modified 12-29-16)
1100 Park Lane Associates v. Feldman
(2008, 1st District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1467, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
1550 Laurel Owner’s Assn., Inc. v. Appellate Division of Superior Court
(2018, 2d District – 28 Cal.App.5th 1146, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 740)

 

A

Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP v. Lahiji
(2019, 2d District – 40 Cal.App.5th 882, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Abuemeira v. Stephens
(2016, 2d District – 246 Cal.App.4th 1291, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 437)
Albanese v. Menounos
(2013, 2d District – 218 Cal.App.4th 923, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 546)
Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management
(2022, B313842)
A.F. Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc.
(2006, 4th District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Aguilar v. Goldstein
(2012, 2d District – 207 Cal.App.4th 1152, 144 Cal.Rptr3d 238)
All One God Faith, Inc. v. Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards, Inc.
(2010, 1st District – 183 Cal.App.4th 1186, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 861)
Alpha & Omega Development, LP v. Whillock Contracting, Inc.
(2011, 4th District – 200 Cal.App.4th 656, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 781)
Alston v. Dawe
(2020, 4th District – 52 Cal.App.5th 706, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
American Humane Association v. Los Angeles Times Communications
(2001, 2d District – 92 Cal.App.4th 1095, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 488)
Plaintiff sought declaratory relief to prevent the LA Times from using a confidential internal report about conflicts of interest in the plaintiff organization. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. In the published portion of its opinion, the appellate court addresses the question of the timing of a request for attorney fees and costs
(2011, 4th District – 200 Cal. App. 4th 656)
Ampex Corp. v. Cargle
(2005, 1st District – 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 863)
Ampex sued an anonymous Internet poster for defamation and the poster responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. Once the poster was identified as Cargle, Ampex dismissed the suit and refiled the action in New York. The appellate court in an earlier opinion ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the anti-SLAPP motion even after dismissal. In this opinion the court holds that Cargle was the prevailing party in the trial court and was therefore entitled to attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Anderson v. Geist
(2015, 4th District – 236 Cal.App.4th 79, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 286)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC
(2015, 1st District – 234 Cal.App.4th 1270, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 759)
Annette F. v. Sharon S.
(2004, 4th District – 119 Cal.App.4th 1146, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 100)
This case arose from highly publicized and controversial litigation concerning the validity of “second-parent” adoptions. The parties were domestic partners. Sharon bore two children by artificial insemination during the relationship. Annette successfully petitioned the court to adopt the first child as a second parent. After the couple separated Annette filed a legal action to adopt the second child. Following that action, Annette sued Sharon for defamation arising from statements made by Sharon in a letter to an advocacy organization. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The trial court ruled that the action arose from constitutionally protected speech but concluded that Annette had established a probability of prevailing on her claim. The appellate court disagrees on the grounds that Annette is a public figure by virtue of the public controversy surrounding the adoption proceedings and cannot prove the actual malice required of public figures alleging defamation.
Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp
(2009, 2d District – 164 Cal.App.4th 1108, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 849)
Antounian v. Louis Vuitton Malletier
(2010, 2d District – 189 Cal.App.4th 438, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 3)
Applied Business Software, Inc. v. Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc.
(2008, 2d District – 138 Cal.App.4th 1307, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 371)
Area 51 Productions, Inc. v. City of Alameda
(2018, 1st District – 20 Cal.App.5th 581, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 165)
Area 55, LLC v. Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP
(2021, 4th District – 61 Cal.App.5th 136, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 519)
Aron v. WIB Holdings
(2/28/2018, 2d District – 21 Cal.App.5th 1069, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Argentieri v. Zuckerberg
(2017, 1st District – 8 Cal.App.5th 768, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 358)
Armin v. Riverside Community Hospital
(2016, 4th District – 5 Cal.App.5th 810, 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 388)
ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
(2006, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.4th 1170, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 62)
Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. L.A. Times Communs. LLC
(2015, 2d District – 239 Cal.App.4th 808, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 564)
Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn.
(2022, 1st District – 76 Cal.App.5th 1043, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 150)
Averill v. Superior Court
(1996, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 782)
Averill publicly criticized a plan by a charitable organization to convert a house in her neighborhood into a shelter for battered women. After she attempted to pursuade her employer not to contribute to the charity, the charity sued her for slander solely for her comments to her employer. The lower court’s denial of Averill’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court holds that comments made in private, if made in connection with a public issue, are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

 

B

Baharian-Mehr v. Smith
(2010, 4th District – 189 Cal.App.4th 265, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 153)
Bailey v. Brewer
(2011, 2d District – 197 Cal.App.4th 781, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380)
Balla v. Hall
(2021, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 652, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 695)
Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC
(2009, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 782)
Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 688)
Plaintiff filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Michael Larivee and the Quisenberry Law Firm. The trial court allowed Larivee to join in the Quisenberry Law Firm’s special motion to strike and granted the motion even though the hearing was held more than 30 days after service. Affirming the lower court’s ruling, the appellate court found the hearing to be timely and held that joinder to a special motion to strike is effective as long as the joining defendant demonstrates that the action arises out of protected First Amendment activity.
Barker v. Fox & Associates
(2015, 1st District – 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 511)
Baughn v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
(2016, 3d District – 246 Cal.App.4th 328, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 764)
Beach v. Harco National Insurance Co.
(2003, 3d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 82, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 454)
Plaintiff sued his insurer, alleging bad faith in handling his claim because of delay. The company filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that, because the claim was eventually submitted to arbitration, the company’s processing of the claim was an exercise of its right of petition under the First Amendment and therefore protected by both the anti-SLAPP statute and the “litigation privilege” (Civil Code § 47(b)). The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. According to the court, the cause of action lies in nonaction and delays, not in any specific statement or writing by the company, and none of this conduct involved the company’s right of petition. Moreover, “the fact that a dispute exists that might ultimately lead to arbitration does not make every step in that dispute part of a right to petition.”
Behunin v. Superior Court
(2017, 2d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 833, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 475)
Beilenson v. Superior Court
(1996, 2d District – 44 Cal.App.4th 944, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 357)
Beilenson defeated Sybert in an election for U.S. Congress. After the election Sybert sued Beilenson, a campaign worker, a consulting firm, and a campaign committee, alleging that Beilenson distributed libelous campaign literature. The lower court’s denial of Beilenson’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court holds that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements by candidates for public office and their supporters.
Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales
(2018, 2d District – 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 71)
Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLCJune 29, 2021
(2021, Second District – 65 Cal.App.5th 1145, 280 Cal.Rptr.3d 662)
Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 1179, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 621)
Benasra sued lawyers who represented his business rival while still representing him, alleging breach of duty of loyalty. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The court reverses, holding that the court’s earlier decision in Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp — that a claim for legal malpratice is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint — applies to a complaint alleging breach of attorney duty of loyalty.
Ben-Shahar v. Pickart
(2014, 2d District – 231 Cal.App.4th 1043, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 464)
Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 106 Cal.App.4th 978, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 364)
While Benitez was being treated for infertility at NCWCMG’s facility, she told her doctor she was a lesbian. Subsequently she encountered difficulties in receiving infertility treatment at NCWCMG. Benitez sued on a variety claims. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, on which the trial court did not rule. On appeal, Benitez argued that the motion is without merit and should be denied. The appellate court refuses to consider the issue on the grounds that there is no appealable order from the trial court.
Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios
(2013, 1st District – 218 Cal.App.4th 418, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 423)
Benton v. Benton
(2019, 4th District – 39 Cal.App.5th 212, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 118)
Bergman v. Drum
(2005, 2d District – 129 Cal.App.4th 11, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 112)
Bergman sued attorney Drum for malicious prosecution of a case against her, and in response Drum filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The motion was denied and then affirmed in an earlier appeal, in which the appellate court concluded that Bergman had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on her claim. Thereafter the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant. In this appeal the court holds that the doctrine of the law of the case precluded summary judgment for the defendant because summary judgement was inconsistent with the appellate court’s previous ruling concerning the anti-SLAPP motion.
Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
(2015, 2d District – 236 Cal.App.4th 793, 187 CAl.Rptr.3d 36)
Bernardo v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America
(2004, 4th District – 115 Cal.App.4th 322, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 197)
Plaintiffs sued Planned Parenthood under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), alleging that its websites contained “unlawful, unfair, confusing, and misleading statements” concerning abortion, and seeking injunctive relief. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted by the trial court after plaintiffs were unable to show a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claims for injunctive relief. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the state’s anti-SLAPP statute is unconstitutional on its face. The appellate court rejects all of plaintiffs’ arguments and affirms the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion.
Bernstein v. LaBeouf
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 15, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 173)
Bikkina v. Mahadevan
(2015, 1st District – 241 Cal.App.4th 70, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 499)
Birkner v. Lam
(2007, 1st District – 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190)
Blackburn v. Brady
(2004, 4th District – 116 Cal.App.4th 460, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 696)
Blackburn obtained an undivided one-half interest in property co-owned by Brady and his partner Lanser at public auction in partial satisfaction of a money judgment against Lanser. In this action for partition Blackburn also alleges fraud, that Brady and Lanser conspired to drive up the value of the land at auction. Brady filed a special motion to strike the complaint for fraud, arguing that his written bid and any oral statements made at the auction were made in connection with an official proceeding, i.e., Brady’s lawsuit against Lanser, and thus was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. The court agrees with existing case law that the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect every act having any connection, however remote, with an official proceeding. In order for statements or writings to be protected by the statute they must be made in connection with “an issue under consideration or review” in the proceeding.
Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc.
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 903, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
DIRECTV sent letters to thousands of people who purchased devices that can pirate DIRECTV’s television signals, demanding that the recipients cease using the devices. Several recipients of these demand letters filed a complaint against DIRECTV, alleging that the mailing of the demand letters was an unfair business practice (Business & Professions Code, § 17200). DIRECTV filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirms, holding that the provision of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute that excludes public interest lawsuits does not apply to the plaintiff-purchasers’ action, and DIRECTV is entitled to have the complaint stricken.
Bleavins v. Demarest
(2011, 2d District – 196 Cal. App. 4th 1533, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 580)
Blue v. Office of Inspector General
(2018, 3d District – 23 Cal.App.5th 138, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 590)
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2017, 4th District – 13 Cal.App.5th 851, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 598)
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2021, 4th District – 11 Cal.5th 995, 281 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678)
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2022, 4th District – 83 Cal. App. 5th 288, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730)
Booker v. Rountree
(2007, 4th District – 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 733)
Bowen v. Lin
(2022, 2d District – 80 Cal. App. 5th 155)
Bradbury v. Superior Court
(1996, 2d District – 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 207)
A deputy sheriff shot and killed a citizen during execution of a search warrant. Following an investigation by the district attorney, the deputy was exonerated. However, the DA’s public report of the investigation questioned the veracity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant. The deputy sued the district attorney for slander. The trial court’s denial of the district attorney’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. Held: the state’s anti-SLAPP statute applies to public employees who issue reports and comment on issues of public interest relating to their official duties. Moreover, public entities are “persons” for the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute and thus entitled to recover attorney fees when they prevail on a special motion to strike a complaint.
Branner v. Regents University of California
(2009, 1st District – 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 690)
Braun v. The Chronicle Publishing Co.
(1997, 1st District – 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 58)
Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2004, 4th District – 116 Cal.App.4th 679, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 702)
Brenton sued for product liability and other causes of tort action, alleging that she suffered a psychotic breakdown after using a Metabolife product. She also alleged that Metabolife’s false advertising and misbranding of the product violated the state’s unfair business practices statute (Business & Professions Code § 17200). Metabolife moved to strike the entire complaint as a SLAPP, arguing that Brenton’s complaint targeted protected commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. According to the court, the specific issue in this case is a recurring one: whether a claim against a manufacturer for physical injury, allegedly caused by use of its product, is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute merely because the manufacturer also engaged in commercial speech to market the product. The court rejects Metabolife’s argument that its labeling and advertising of the product are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because they constitute, in the statute’s terms, written statements made in a place open to the public in connection with an issue of public interest. In addition, the court holds that the newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 (effective Jan. 1, 2004) expressly removes Brenton’s complaint for unfair business practices from the anti-SLAPP statute’s protection. (Section 425.17 provides that the anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint cannot be applied to “any cause of action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, … arising from any statement or conduct by that person,” as long as certain conditions are met.) The court rejects Metabolife’s argument that section 425.17 is unconstitutional because it cannot withstand the strict scrutiny standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Publ. Serv. Comm’n (1980). (See also Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2003); Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc., 3d District Court of Appeal (2004).)
Briganti v. Chow
(2019, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.5th 504, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 909)
Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
(2021, 2nd District – 65 Cal.App.5th 99, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 518)
Brill Media Co., LLC v. TCW Group, Inc.
(2005, 2d District – 132 Cal.App.4th 324, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 371)
74 affiliated media companies sued defendant bond holders and their related entities for breach of contract and interference with economic relations, alleging defendants caused the default of and liquidation of plaintiffs’ entities by breaching confidentiality agreements and interfering with pending contracts. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed, concluding plaintiffs’ claims arose out of commercial speech and conduct and therefore fell under the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute. Judge Bosk dissented.
Britts v. Superior Court
(2006, 6th District -145 Cal.App.4th 1112, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 185)
Brodeur v. Atlas Entertainment, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 248 Cal.App.4th 665, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 483)
Brown v. Grimes
(2011, 2d District – 192 Cal.App.4th 265, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 893)
Burrill v. Nair
(2013, 3d District – 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 332)

 

C

C.W. Howe Partners Inc. v. Mooradian
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 688, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 806)
Cabral v. Martins
(2009, 1st District – 177 Cal.App.4th 471, 99 Cal. Rptr.3d 394)
California Back Specialists Medical Group v. Rand
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1032, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 268)
Callanan v. GRIZZLY DESIGNS, LLC
(June 29, 2022, C094008)
Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP  v. Cohen
(2011, 2d District – 195 Cal.App.4th 373, Cal.Rptr.3d)
Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp.
(2007, 2d District – 151 Cal.App.4th 454, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 839)
Carver v. Bonds
(2005, 1st District – 169 Cal.App.4th 328, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 480) 
Plaintiff podiatrist sued baseball player, reporters, and newspaper for defamation arising from statements in a newspaper article. Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions were granted; plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that stating facts and opinions about plaintiff was plainly “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of … [defendants’] constitutional right[s] of free speech” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4); and since the statements served as a warning against plaintiff’s method of self-promotion, and were provided along with other information to assist patients in choosing doctors, the statements involved a matter of public concern. Furthermore, because plaintiff could not prove falsity, and because some of the newspaper’s statements were privileged, he did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claims.
Castillo v. Pacheco
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 242, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 305)
Castleman v. Sagaser
(2013, 5th District – 216 Cal.App.4th 481, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 492)
Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc.
(2022, 1st District – 73 Cal.App.5th 764, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 773)
Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health
(2018, 1st District – 19 Cal.App.5th 203, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 848)
Century21 v. Haberman
(2009, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 249)
Chabak v. Monroy
(2007, 5th District – 140 Cal.App.4th 821, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 777)
Chaker v. Mateo
(2012, 4th District – 209 Cal.App.4th 1138, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 496)
Chambers v. Miller
(2006, 4th District – 94 Cal.App.4th 1083, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 825)
Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Peng Xufeng
(2020, 4th District – 57 Cal.App.5th 1, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 853)
Charney v. Standard General, L.P.
(2017, 2d District – 10 Cal.App.5th 149, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 889)
Chavez v. Mendoza
(2001, 4th District – 148 Cal.App.4th 71, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 600)
Mendoza sued an insurance company and its agents, Richard and Ina Chavez, asserting numerous contract and tort claims. All claims but one were dismissed. Subsequently the Chavezes sued Mendoza for malicious prosecution. Mendoza moved to strike the complaint as a SLAPP. The trial court ruled that a malicious prosecution complaint was not subject to the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court reversed the ruling, holding that a malicious prosecution complaint is subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. However, the court also concluded that the Chavezes had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their complaint and therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mendoza’s special motion to strike the complaint.
Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Assn.
(2018, 4th District – 27 Cal.App.5th 1202, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 792)
Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow
(2011, 2d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 910)
Cho v. Chang
(2013, 2d District – 219 Cal.App.4th 521, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 846)
Chodos v. Cole
(2012, 2d District – 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 451)
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (“Alnor I”)
(2007, 4th District – 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 866)
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (“Alnor II”)
(2008, 4th District – 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 866)
Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim
(1996, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 620)
The Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit seeking to vacate a multimillion dollar judgment against it, in favor of our client, Lawrence Wollersheim. This was part of extensive and drawn-out litigation (lasting 15 years) between Scientology and Wollersheim. The trial court granted Wollersheim’s anti-SLAPP motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action arising from any act in furtherance of the right of petition, such as Wollersheim’s original successful lawsuit, regardless of the subject matter. More than $428,000 in fees were awarded.
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Hass
(2020, 4th District – 46 Cal.App.5th 589, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 380)
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 117, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 501)
City of Alhambra v. D’Ausilio
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 1301, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 142)
City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments, LLC
(2013, 4th District – 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698)
City of Industry v. City of Fillmore
(2011, 2d District – 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 433)
City of Long Beach v. California Citizens for Neighborhood Empowerment
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 302, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 473)
City filed a civil complaint against CCNE, alleging violations of the municipal code concerning campaign contributions. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, holding that the “prosecutorial exemption” in the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to the complaint and the city had not demonstrated that it was likely to prevail on the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the prosecutorial exemption — “enforcement actions brought in the name of the people of the State of California” — applies to civil actions by cities enforcing municipal law. According to the court, the legislative history of the statute indicates a broader intent behind the exemption than is evident from the specific wording. (See also People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc., 1st District Court of Appeal, and People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar, 4th District Court of Appeal.)
City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 606, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 632)
The City of Los Angeles, on behalf of two of its employees, filed petitions seeking workplace violence protective orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 against animal rights activists. Defendants filed anti-SLAPP motions which the trial court denied, holding that the petitions were exempt as public entity enforcement actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(d).The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the exemption did not apply because the City filed the petitions as “employer” and not in its capacity as “public prosecutor” the petitions arose from protected free speech activity; and the City failed to demonstrate a probability it would prevail on its claims because (1) the protective orders under section 527.8 can only be brought against natural persons (not ADL), and (2) the City presented no evidence that individual defendant Ferdin conveyed a credible threat of violence in the workplace.
City of Riverside v. Stansbury
(2007, 4th District – 155 Cal.App.4th 1582, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 862)
City of San Diego v. Dunkl
(2001, 4th District – 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 269)
The City and the partnership that owns the San Diego Padres baseball team filed preemptive suits against proponents of a ballot initiative that would have made certain negative findings concerning an earlier city ordinance that authorized funds for construction of a downtown ballpark. Plaintiffs argued that the initiative was invalid and should not be placed on the ballot even if adequate signatures were obtained because the initiative sought to enact measures that were beyond the power of hte voters to adopt. Defendants filed a special motion to strike. The trial court granted summary judgment and ruled that in consequence the SLAPP motion was moot. The appellate court affirms. “Where . . . declaratory relief actions present purely legal questions about the validity of the subject matter of the lawsuits, . . . the SLAPP issue of whether the plaintiffs are more probably than not going to prevail in their actions may appropriately be determined by the use of related summary judgment proceedings.”
City of Santa Monica v. Stewart
(2005, 2d District – 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 72)
Several lawsuits were brought concerning enforcement of initiatives approved by voters in Santa Monica and Pasadena. The initiatives sought to prevent city officials from receiving certain advantages from persons or entities who benefited from decisions made by those officials. Pasadena officials refused to certify the initiative on the grounds that they believed it was unconstitutional. A Pasadena resident filed a petition for a writ of mandate to require the city to certify the initiative; the initiative’s sponsor was granted leave to intervene. The city filed a cross-complaint against the sponsor seeking a judicial declaration that the city had no duty to certify the initiative under the law. The sponsor filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the cause of action in the cross-complaint arose from protected First Amendment activity and the city was not able to demonstrate the required probability of succeeding on the cross-complaint.
CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Moore
(2008, 2d District – 159 Cal.App.4th 262, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 921)

Clarity Co. Consulting v. Gabriel
(2022, 2d District – 77 Cal.App.5th 454, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 532)

Clark v. Mazgani
(2009, 2d District – 170 Cal.App.4th 1280, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 24)
Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club
(2006, 1st District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1166, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 818)
Note! Opinion superseded by California Supreme Court’s granting of petition for review on June 21, 2006 (S143087).Plaintiffs filed suit against Sierra Club, alleging improper distribution of information during an election to the Club’s board of directors. The trial court granted Sierra Club’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reversed as to three causes of action which it found were exempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17(b) as a public interest action. It also found that one cause of action was not exempt under section 425.17(b) because the claim “seeks relief pertaining specifically to [two named directors] … [and] the gravamen of a cause of action seeking relief of such a personal kind does not satisfy the public interest criterion of the exemption of § 425.17.” The court found that the claim arose from acts protected by the First Amendment in connection with a public issue, and that the uncontested summary judgment in favor of defendant conclusively established that plaintiff had no probability of prevailing.
Cohen v. Brown
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 302, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 24)
Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC
(2012, 2d District – 206 Cal.App.4th 1095, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 646)
Collier v. Harris
(2015, 4th District – 240 Cal.App.4th 41, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 31)
Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista
(2021, 1st District – 61 Cal.App.5th 1039, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 895)
Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 109 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 245)
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Colt for “an illegal scheme to manipulate the price of four stocks.” Colt responded to the SEC action by stipulating to a consent decree. After Freedom Communications published stories about the SEC allegations, Colt sued for defamation and other damages. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, and the appellate court affirms. The court concluded that, because defendant is immune from liability for the articles under Civil Code section 47 and plaintiff had not offered credible evidence of actual malice, plaintiff had not established a probability of prevailing on the complaint as required by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Coltrain v. Shewalter
(2003, 4th District – 66 Cal.App.4th 94, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 600)
Our clients, the neighbors of an apartment complex, filed nuisance actions in small claims court against the owners of the complex, after unsuccessful attempts to abate alleged criminal activity and harassment by residents of the complex. In retaliation, the owners of the complex sued our clients for trade libel, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. After our clients filed an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs dismissed their complaint. The Court of Appeal found that our clients were targets of a SLAPP and were entitled to recover our attorneys fees, even though the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint.
Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes
(2017, 2d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 119, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 767)
Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 110 Cal.App.4th 26, 1 Cal.Rpr.3d 390)
Commonwealth Energy gave Investor Data a list of Commonwealth’s shareholders. After Investor Data used the list to market its services to the shareholders, Commonwealth sued for a variety of business-related causes of action. Investor Data filed an anti-SLAPP motion, denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirms. The court points out that, because the speech alleged to be the cause of action (Investor Data’s pitch to Commonwealth’s investors) did not occur within an official proceeding, the decision whether Investor Data’s statements are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute depends entirely on whether the statements were made in connection with a public issue (following the standard announced by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity). The court holds that a sales pitch for a commercial service does not qualify as a public issue for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. (See the earlier case, Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 1st District Court of Appeal.)
ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson
(2001, 4th District – 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 625)
After a failed attempt at merger between ComputerXpress and a business owned by defendants, defendants posted statements about ComputerXpress on the internet and filed a complaint against ComputerXpress with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). ComputerXpress sued, alleging in nine causes of action that defendants had conspired to damage its reputation and cause it economic harm. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that none of the causes of action fell under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court noted that the nine causes of action were based on three distinct sets of facts: (1) statements made in private business transactions, (2) the internet postings, and (3) the SEC complaint. The court concluded that statements made in the internet postings and SEC complaint fell under the anti-SLAPP statute, whereas the statements made in private business transactions did not. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the causes of action subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. In addition, the court ruled that defendants should be considered the prevailing party on the SLAPP motion, notwithstanding their partial success, and thus are entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred by the motion.
Comstock v. Aber
(2013, 1st District – 212 Cal.App.4th 931)
Lisa Aber filed a claim of sexual harassment and battery against her employer and two of its employees. One of those employees filed a cross-complaint against Aber, alleging claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted Aber’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the cross-complaint. The Court of Appeal affirmed. In its decision, the Court of Appeal held that Aber’s statements to the police, a nurse, and the employer’s HR manager were all protected under the anti-SLAPP law, as statements made in, or in connection with matters under review by, an official proceeding or body, and that the cross-complainant had not shown that his claims had any merit. Cross-complainant appealed the trial court’s award of $62,299.60 for Aber’s attorneys’ fees and costs, but that appeal was later dismissed.
Conroy v. Spitzer
(1999, 4th District – 70 Cal.App.4th 1446, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 443)
A candidate for public office sued his rival, alleging defamation in the rival’s campaign statements. The appellate court upholds the trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiff was a public figure and thus required to prove malice to prevail on a claim of defamation; he failed to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction a probability of prevailing on his claim, as required to defeat the special motion.
Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica International, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 107 Cal.App.4th 595, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 191)
Consumer and consumer advocate sued a manufacturer of herbal supplements, alleging false advertising and other causes of action for the company’s claim that its herbal supplement enlarged women’s breasts. The appellate court affirms the trial court’s denial of the company’s special motion to strike the complaint. Defendant had not shown that its commercial speech was protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute and in any event plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims.
Contemporary Services Corp. v. Staff Pro Inc.
(2007, 4th District – 152 Cal.App.4th 1043, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 434)
Contreras v. Dowling
(2016, 1st District – 5 Cal.App.5th 394, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)
Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
(2013, 4th District – 215 Cal.App.4th 1237, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 70)
Coretronic Corporation et al. v. Cozen O’Connor et al.
(2011, 2d District – 192 Cal.App.4th 1381, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 254
County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
(2016, 4th District – 246 Cal.App.4th 20, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 573)
Cross v. Cooper
(2011, 6th District – 197 Cal. App. 4th 357; 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 903)
Cross v. Facebook, Inc.
(2017, 1st District – 14 Cal.App.5th 190, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 250)
Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Federal National Mortgage Association
(2017, 3d District – 13 Cal.App.5th 757, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Cruz v. City of Culver City
(2016, 2d District – 2 Cal.App.5th 239, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 736)
Cuevas-Martinez v. Sun Salt Sand, Inc.
(2019, 4th District – 35 Cal.App.5th 1109, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 200)Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Pacific Dredge & Construction, LLC
(2022, 4th District – 76 Cal.App.5th 651, 291 Cal.Rptr.3d 639)

 

D

D’Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America
(2014, 6th District – 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 171)
D.C. v. R.R.
(2010, 2d District – 182 Cal.App.4th 1190, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 399)
Dae v. Traver
(2021, 2nd District, Division 2 – 69 Cal.App.5th 447, 284 Cal.Rptr.3d 495)
Daimler Chrysler Motors Co. v. Lew Williams, Inc.
(2006, 3d District – 142 Cal.App.4th 344, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 233)
Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club
(2000, 4th District – 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 205)
The appellate court upholds the trials court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint. Held: The anti-SLAPP statutes applies to allegedly defamatory statements made at meetings of a homeowners association and in the association’s newsletter because both forums were open to the public and the defendants’ statements “concerned the manner in which a large residential community would be governed.”
Daniel v. Wayans
(2017, 2d District – 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 213Cal.Rptr.3d 865)
Daniels v. Robbins
(2010, 4th District – 182 Cal.App.4th 204, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 223)
Dean v. Friends of Pine Meadow
(2018, 1st District – ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 865)
DeCambre v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 1, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 888)
(modification, 4-2-15)
Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 892)
Note:  Opinion overruled by Assembly Bill 1158 (2005), amending Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
UDR is a consumer reporting agency that gathers and sells information about unlawful detainer cases. Several tenants, after unsuccessfully attempting to have UDR amend information about them in UDR’s records, sued UDR, alleging negligence, defamation, and other acts. The trial court denied UDR’s anti-SLAPP motions to strike the complaints, finding that the motions were frivolous. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that UDR’s motions did not meet the requirement in the anti-SLAPP statute for notice of a hearing no later than 30 days after service of the motion. (See also Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002).)
de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC
(2018, 2d District – 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 625)
Delois v. Barrett Block Partners
(2009, 1st District – 177 Cal.App.4th 940, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 609)
Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc
(2014, 2d District – 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 131)
Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 1273, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 349)
Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics
(2009,1st District – 170 Cal.App.4th 843, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 464)
Dickens v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
(2004, 2d District – 117 Cal.App.4th 705, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 877)
Dickens was charged in criminal court with defrauding Provident by submitting false claims that he was disabled. Dickens was acquitted by a jury. He then sued Provident, alleging malicious prosecution and other causes of action. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms, holding that a malicious prosecution claim based on termination of a criminal prosecution in plaintiff’s favor is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. The court concludes that Dickens failed to establish a prima facie case of liability for malicious prosecution because he offered no evidence that defendant was instrumental in the criminal prosecution against Dickens.
Dickinson v. Cosby I
(2017, 2d District – 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 430)
Dickinson v. Cosby II
(2019, 2d District – 37 Cal.App.5th 1138, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 350)
Digerati Holdings, LLC v. Young Money Entertainment, LLC
(2011, 2d District- 194 Cal.App.4th 873, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 736)
Direct Shopping Network, LLC v. James
(2012, 2d District – 206 Cal.App.4th 1551, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Dixon v. Superior Court
(1994, 4th District – 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 687)
Surveyor brought an action against a university professor, alleging interference with economic relationships, libel, slander, and trade libel arising from statements critical of the surveyor’s report regarding a proposed development at the university. The statements were made during the public review period following issuance of a negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The lower court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed.
Doe v. Luster
(2006, 2d District – 145 Cal.App.4th 139, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 403)
Doe v. McLaughlin
(September 21, 2022, No. A161534)
Doe v. State of California
(2017, 4th District – 8 Cal.App.5th 832, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 391)
John Doe 2 v. Superior Court
(2016, 2d District – 1 Cal.App.5th 1300, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 60)
Donovan v. Dan Murphy Foundation
(2012, 2d District – 204 Cal.App.4th 1500, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 71)
Dorit v. Noe
(2020, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.5th 458, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 98)
Dougherty v. Haag
(2008, 4th District – 165 Cal.App.4th 315, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
(1996, 2d District – 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830)
A recording company sued a law firm for defamation for alleging the company had failed to pay royalties to charities designated by celebrities who had made a recording. The lower court’s granting of the defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed. The law firm’s letter to celebrities who had participated in the recording is protected from defamation liability under Civil Code section 47 as a communication preliminary to an official proceeding. Defendants’ appellate attorney fees are recoverable as part of attorney fees authorized by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Dowling v. Zimmerman
(2001, 4th District – 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174)
Landlord sued attorney who represented tenants in unlawful detainer action for defamation, misrepresentation, and infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court affirms the trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaints. The anti-SLAPP statute applies because the cause of action is statements made in connection with a pending unlawful detainer action, statements that arguably involved public issues of nuisance and safety (defendant stated that someone had twice entered a locked garage and turned off the dial of the tenants’ water heater). Plaintiff’s complaint was pleaded without the requisite specificity and defendant’s statements were privileged under Civil Code section 47(b). The court of appeal also stated that the provision in the anti-SLAPP law for attorney fees must be construed broadly, that a pro per defendant could collect fees under anti-SLAPP law for assistance from retained anti-SLAPP counsel, and that defendant could proceed to collect fee award even though plaintiff had appealed it, unless plaintiff posted a bond.
Drell v. Cohen
(2014, 2d District – 232 Cal.App.4th 24, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 191)
Drum v. Bleau, Fox & Associates
(2003, 2d District – 107 Cal.App.4th 1009, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 602)
Bleau Fox, a law firm, won a legal malpractice action against Drum and his law firm in a jury trial. Although the judge stayed the judgment pending notice of appeal, Bleau Fox immediately filed a levy against Drum’s bank account. Drum then filed a complaint against Bleau Fox for abuse of process. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that Drum had established a prima facie case and the action is not barred by the litigation privilege (Civil Code section 47(b)).
Drummond v. Desmarais
(2009, 6th District – 176 Cal.App.4th 439, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 394)
Du Charme v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 45
(2003, 1st District – 110 Cal.App.4th 107, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 501)
After he was terminated as assistant business manager for a union, the union’s trustee posted a statement on the Internet that Du Charme had been fired for “financial mismanagement”. Du Charme sued the trustee and the union on a variety of complaints. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied on the grounds that the statement posted on the Internet was not made in connection with any official proceeding and did not concern a public issue, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms, emphasizing that a statement must concern an issue of widespread public interest to qualify for protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. “[M]ere publication … should not turn otherwise private information … into a matter of public interest.”
Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. v. Buschel
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1098, 212 Cal Rptr 3d 75)
Dunning v. Clews
(2021, 4th District – 64 Cal.App.5th 156, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 607)
Dunning v. Johnson
(April 23, 2021, D076570)
DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court
(2000, 4th District – 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755)
A class action was filed against DuPont, claiming damages on behalf of purchasers of a drug manufactured by DuPont and alleging that DuPont made false statements before regulatory bodies, the medical profession, and the public regarding the drug. DuPont filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The motion was denied by the trial court. The appellate court determined that the remarks complained of were “acts in furtherance of the person’s [DuPont’s] right of petition or free speech” protected by the anti-SLAPP statute and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff could demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, as required by the statute. (See also Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.)
Dwight R. v. Christy B.
(2013, 4th District – 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 406)
Dyer v. Childress
(2007, 2d District – 147 Cal.App.4th 1273, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 544)
Dziubla v. Piazza
(2020, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 140, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 297)

 

E

Edward v. Ellis
(December 14, 2021, G059523)

Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC
(2014, 3d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 490)
Endres v. Moran
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 786)
Plaintiffs sued, claiming defendants had committed various torts as part of a wrongful attempt to control a church. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted for only one of the eleven causes of action (for conspiracy). The trial court denied defendants’ motion for attorneys fees and defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the results of the anti-SLAPP motion were so minimal and insignificant that the case remained essentially the same, and the defendants were not prevailing parties, justifying the lower court’s ruling that defendants should not recover fees.
Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. C.S.I. Telecommunications Engineers
(1996, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.4th 1591, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 491)
Note:  Opinon disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.Ericsson sued a consultant who recommended another company’s proposal to supply and install a communications system for Ventura County, alleging that the consultant intentionally misrepresented the merits of Ericsson’s proposal. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court concludes that the consultant’s report was prepared in fulfillment of a contract, not for the purpose of speaking out on a public issue (expenditure of public funds).
Evans v. Unkow
(1995, 1st District – 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 624)
A former public official sued individuals who had filed a notice of petition to recall him from office, alleging that statements made in the notice were defamatory. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action, and held that evidence opposing a special motion to strike a complaint must be admissible and declarations may generally not be based on information or belief.

 

F

Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Rights Coalition, Inc.
(2004, 3d District – 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 157)
Note: Opinion overruled by Assembly Bill 1158 (2005), amending Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion because it was not heard within 30 days after service of the motion and defendants did not establish that the court’s docket conditions required a later hearing, as required by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms.
Falcon Brands, Inc. v. Mousavi & Lee, LLP
(2022, 4th District – 74 Cal.App.5th 506, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 521)
Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
(2004, 2d District – 117 Cal.App.4th 1138, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 493)
A seller of women’s apparel filed an action for defamation against the Coalition, a nonprofit organization, alleging that defendants falsely claimed it was responsible for “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in unpaid wages due its workers. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that Fashion 21 had established a probability of prevailing on its complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of proving the falsity of defendants’ statements about unpaid wages. See companion case Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court.
FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc.
(2017, 2d District – 13 Cal.App.5th 707, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 539)
Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates
(2021, 2nd District – 68 Cal.App.5th 136, 283Cal.Rptr.3d 22)
Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC
(2015, 4th District – 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino
(2001, 2d District – 89 Cal.App.4th 294, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 906)
After learning that Paladino planned to sue Fox for wrongful termination, Fox sued Paladino, its former in-house counsel, alleging disclosure of confidential and privileged information. The trial court denied Paladino’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Fox could not show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits inasmuch as an in-house counsel could disclose ostensible employer-client confidences to his own attorneys in the preparation of a suit for wrongful termination by the employer.
Freeman v. Schack
(2007, 4th District – 154 Cal.App.4th 719, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 867)
Freemont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin
(2011, 2d District – 198 Cal.App.4th 1153, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 478)
FRYM v. 601 MAIN STREET LLC
(2022, 1st District – 82 Cal. App. 5th 613)

 

G

Gallagher v. Connell
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 1260, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 673)
Evidence that is normally inadmissible may, if no objections are raised, be considered by the court in determining whether a plaintiff challenged by an anti-SLAPP motion has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the complaint.
Gallanis-Politis v. Medina
(2007, 2d District – 152 Cal.App.4th 600, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 701)
Gallano v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC
(2021, 1st District – 67 Cal.App.5th 953, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 748)
Gallant v. City of Carson
(2005, 2d District – 128 Cal.App.4th 705, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 318)
Gallant alleged she was terminated as general manager of the city after she reported misdeeds of a city attorney and that, prior to her termination, employees of the city had made public defamatory remarks about her competency as general manager. She sued the city for defamation and wrongful termination. City filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint for defamation, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that Gallant had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on her claim.
Gallimore v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
(2002, 2d District – 102 Cal.App.4th 1388, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 560)
Gallimore sought damages from State Farm for alleged misconduct in handling his claims. The company filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that Gallimore’s allegations were based on reports that the company had filed with the state’s Department of Insurance. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the lower court, and State Farm, had confused allegations of wrongdoing with the evidence required to prove them.
Garcia v. Rosenberg
(2019, 5th District – 42 Cal.App.5th 1050, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 377)
The Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court
(2004, 2d District – 117 Cal.App.4th 1156, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 506)
In this companion case to Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the appellate court considered whether the trial court had “good cause” to lift the stay on discovery required when an anti-SLAPP motion is filed. Before hearing defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiffs’ libel claim, the trial court permitted plaintiffs to conduct discovery on the issue of actual malice. The appellate court concludes that the trial court absued its discretion in allowing discovery on actual malice before first determining whether plaintiffs had a reasonable probability of establishing the other elements of libel.
Garretson v. Post
(2007, 4th District – 156 Cal.App.4th 1508, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 230)
Gaynor v. Bulen
(2018, 4th District – 19 Cal.App.5th 864, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 243)
GeneThera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould Professional Corp.
(2009, 2d District – 171 Cal.App.4th 901, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 218)
Gerbosi et al. v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 435, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 73)
GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs
(2013, 2d District – 220 Cal.App.4th 141, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 831)
Ghafur v. Bernstein
(2005, 1st District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1230, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 626)
Defendants wrote a letter to the state superintendent of education concerning Ghafur and the charter schools he managed. The letter urged an investigation of religious instruction in the schools and a link to an Islamic terrorist organization. Ghafur sued defendants for defamation. The trial court granted defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that Ghafur was unlikely to prevail on his complaint. Ghafur, as a public official, was required to proffer clear and convincing evidence that defendants acted with malice and he had not.
Gilbert v. Sykes
(2007, 3d District – 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 752)
Golden Eagle Land Investment, L.P. v. Rancho Santa Fe Association
(2018, 4th District – 19 Cal.App.5th 399, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 903)

Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC et al. v. Direct Action Everywhere
(2022, 1st District – 81 Cal.App.5th 82, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 768)

Golden State Seafood, Inc. v. Schloss
(2020, 2d District – 53 Cal.App.5th 21, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 608)
Goldstein v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
(2004, 2d District – 122 Cal.App.4th 229, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 292)
In a class action Ralphs Grocery filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was denied by the trial court on the grounds that the various causes of action did not arise from conduct protected by the First Amendment, and in any case class actions are exempt from the special motion to strike under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. Defendant filed a writ petition, which was summarily denied. It then filed a notice of appeal. The court dismisses the appeal. Held: When a special motion to strike is denied on the grounds the cause of action is exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute procedures, the right of immediate appeal under the statute is inapplicable.
Gotterba v. Travolta
(2014, 2d District – 228 Cal.App.4th 35, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 131)
The Governor Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers Alliance
(2002, 1st District – 102 Cal.App.4th 449, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 534)
The Taxpayers Alliance paid for a television ad critical of Davis. After the ad was broadcast, the Davis Committee sued for injunctive relief, seeking to compel the Alliance to comply with disclosure and reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act of 1974. The Alliance filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, which was denied by the trial court. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the financing of the TV ad was activity protected by the First Amendment and the Davis Committee was not likely to succeed in its bid to compel the Alliance to comply with the Political Reform Act. The court distinguishes this case from Paul for Council v. Hanyecz.
Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera
(2010, 2d District – 181 Cal.App.4th 1207, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 692)
Greco v. Greco
(2016, 3d District – 2 Cal.App.5th 810, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 501)
Greka Integrated, Inc. v. Lowrey
(2005, 2d District – 133 Cal.App.4th 1572, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 684)
Greka Integrated, Inc. sued a former employee for breach of contract and conversion. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion and the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court held that where a party expressly consents to an untimely hearing date, he has thereafter waived his right to object thereto. The court found that defendant’s statements were covered by the anti-SLAPP law because they were made to his counsel, to authorities, in deposition, and in trial testimony. The court also found that Greka presented no evidence that defendant disclosed proprietary or confidential information or that defendant’s possession of the information was wrongful.
Grenier v. Taylor
(2015, 5th District – 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 867)
Grewal v. Jammu
(2011, 1st District – 191 Cal.App.4th 977, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 835)
Gruber v. Gruber
(2020, 2d District – 48 Cal.App.5th 529, 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 819)
Guarino v. County of Siskiyou
(3/1/2018, 3d District – 21 Cal.App.5th 1170, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 95)
Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
(2009, 2d District – 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 214)

 

H

Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures
(2010, 1st District – 184 Cal.App.4th 1539, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 129)
Hailstone v. Martinez
(2009, 5th District – 169 Cal.App.4th 728, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 798)
Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.
(2007, 2d District – 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 347)
Haneline Pacific Properties, LLC v. May
(2008, 4th District – 167 Cal.App.4th 311, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 919)
Hansen v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(2008, 5th District – 171 Cal.4th 1537, 90 Cal. Rptr.3d 381)
Hardin v. PDX, Inc.
(2014, 1st District – 227 Cal.App.4th 159, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 397)
Hart v. Darwish
(2017, 2d District – 12 Cal.App.5th 218, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 757)
Hawran v. Hixson
(2012, 4th District –  209 Cal.App.4th 256, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88)
Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. v. Kabateck
(2016, 2d District – 7 Cal.App.5th 416, 212Cal.Rptr.3d 589)
Healy v. Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp.
(2006, 4th District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 547)
Plaintiff homeowner sued defendant homeowners association for allegedly defamatory statements defendant’s attorneys made in a letter which it sent out to residents of Tuscany Hills regarding a legal dispute over access through plaintiff’s property. The trial court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that the letter was protected by the litigation privilege and thus plaintiff could not prevail.
Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization
(2012, District – 203 Cal.App.4th 450)
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp.
(2015, 6th District – 239 Cal.App.4th 1174, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 807)
Hicks v. Richard
(2019, 4th District – 39 Cal.App.5th 1167, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 578)
HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co.
(2004, 2d District – 118 Cal.App.4th 204, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 786)
The parties had had a business relationship for a brief period. After the relationship was ended, Lawyers Title sued HMS to recover fees allegedly owed it. Judgment was entered by stipulation. HMS then filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Lawyers Title. Defendant’s special (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the complaint was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that HMS had met its burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on it malicious prosecution lawsuit by making a prima facie showing that Lawyers Title acted with the intent to deliberately misuse the legal system for personal gain or satisfaction at HMS’s expense.
Holbrook v. City of Santa Monica
(2006, 2d District – 144 Cal.App.4th 1247, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 181)
Hui v. Sturbaum
(2014, 1st District – 222 Cal.App.4th 1109, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 569)
Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
(2013, 2d District – 221 Cal.App.4th 1510, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 123)
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.
(2005, 4th District – 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 521)
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. (HLS) and its employee Claire Macdonald sued defendant animal rights activists for trespass, harassment, and related causes of action arising from protests which occurred outside plaintiff Macdonald’s home. Defendants appealed an order denying their anti-SLAPP motion.The appellate court affirmed the denial as to some but not all causes of actions. The court held that the anti-SLAPP statute applied because the gravamen of the action against defendants was based on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and that mere allegations that defendants acted illegally did not render the anti-SLAPP statute inapplicable. As to the probability of plaintiffs’ prevailing on the merits, the court held that collateral estoppel based on the granting of a preliminary injunction was inapplicable to an anti-SLAPP motion because the issues were not identical. It granted the motion to strike the causes of action for trespass and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage because plaintiffs produced insufficient evidence. It also granted the motion to strike plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because plaintiff failed to show duty. The court affirmed the denial as to the causes of action for harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and Macdonald’s individual unfair competition claim because plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing.
Hupp v. Freedom Communications, Inc.
(2013, 4th District – 221 Cal.App.4th 398, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 919)
Hutton v. Hafif
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 527, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 109)
Hylton v. Rogozienski, Inc.
(2009, 4th District – 177 Cal.App.4th 1264, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 805)

 

I-J

In re Marriage of Benner
(2019, 4th District – 36 Cal.App.5th 177, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 906)
Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy
(2016, 1st District – 4 Cal.App.5th 1135, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 853)
Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc.
(2005, 2d District – 129 Cal.App.4th 1050, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 933)
Inland Oversight Comm. v. County of San Bernardino
(2015, 4th District – 239 Cal.App.4th 671, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 384)
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. v. Fitzgibbons
(2006, 4th District – 140 Cal.App.4th 515, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 517)
Plaintiff holding company sued defendant for defamation and other causes of action arising out of an email message in which defendant questioned plaintiff’s financial condition with regard to its purchase and operation of four hospitals. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reversed, finding the email message concerned an issue of public interest, and plaintiff failed to show a probability of prevailing on its claims because it failed to show falsity or any waiver of defendant’s First Amendment rights.
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39 v. Macys Inc.
(2022, 1st District – 83 Cal. App. 5th 985)Issa v. Applegate
(2019, 4th District – 31 Cal.App.5th 689, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 809)
Jackson v. Mayweather
(2017, 2d District – 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 234)
Jackson v. Yarbray
(2009, 2d District – 179 Cal.App.4th 75, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 303)
JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2016, 4th District – 1 Cal.App.5th 984, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 307)
Jay v. Mahaffey
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 700)
Jeffra v. California State Lottery
(2019, 2d District – 39 Cal.App.5th 471, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 873)
Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC v. Latin World Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
(2019, 2d District – 36 Cal.App.5th 766, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 122)
Jeppson v. Ley
(2020, 2d District – 44 Cal.App.5th 845, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 921)
Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp
(2003, 2d District – 114 Cal.App.4th 624, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 715)
Attorneys sued for litigation-related malpractice filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the malpractice action was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Held: the suit does not arise out of the attorneys’ First Amendment right to petition but rather from negligent failure to protect a client’s legal rights.)
Jewett v. Capital One Bank
(2003, 2d District – 113 Cal.App.4th 805, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 675)
Jewett filed a class action complaint against the bank, alleging that the bank’s mailed offers of lines of credit constituted deceptive and unfair business practice. The bank moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that its mass solicitations were protected speech involving a public issue or an issue of public interest. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses, holding that credit card solicitations do not qualify for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute. “[T]o extend the protection of section 425.16 [of the Civil Code] to credit card solicitations would subvert the intent of the Legislature in enacting section 425.16….”
JKC3H8 v. Colton
(2013, 3d District – 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 450)
J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP
(2016, 2d District – 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 782)
Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price
(2010, 2d District – 183 Cal.App.4th 559, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 539)
Johnson v. Ralphs Grocery Co
(2012, 4th District – 204 Cal.App.4th 1097, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 396)
Johnston v. Corrigan
(2005, 2d District – 127 Cal.App.4th 553, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 657)
The trial court denied a motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Subsequently it granted a motion for reconsideration and then awarded attorney fees. At issue on appeal is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider its initial order. The appellate court concludes that it did.
JSJ Limited Partnership v. Mehrban
(2012, 4th District – 205 Cal.App.4th 1512)

 

K

Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(2002, 2d District – 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 187)
Kajima sued the City for payment for work and the City cross-complained of breach of contract. Kajima moved to strike the cross-complaint as a SLAPP; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirms the denial. The court concludes that the allegations in the City’s cross-complaint arose from Kajima’s bidding and contracting practices, not from “acts in furtherance of its right of petition or free speech.” The court states: “We publish this opinion … to emphasize that a cross-complaint or independent lawsuit filed in response to, or in retaliation for, threatened or actual litigation is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute simply because it may be viewed as an oppressive litigation tactic. No lawsuit is properly subject to a special motion to strike under section 425.16 unless its allegations arise from acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech.”
Karnazes v. Ares
(2016, 2d District – 244 Cal.App.4th 344, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 155)
(modified 2-26-16)
Kashian v. Harriman
(2002, 5th District -98 Cal.App.4th 892, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 576)
Kashian was chairman of the board of trustees of a nonprofit community hospital, which planned to build a for-profit hospital in partnership with several physicians. Harriman, a public-interest lawyer, wrote a letter to the state attorney general asking for an investigation of the hospital’s tax-exempt status, alleging that Kashian had a pecuniary interest in certain of the hospital’s transactions. Kashian sued Harriman for defamation and unfair business practices; the latter complaint was based on the allegation that Harriman was engaged in the practice of litigation designed to “extort settlements” that benefitted Harriman. The trial court granted Harriman’s special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Its lengthy opinion is devoted in large part to a discussion of whether the immunity from liability under Civil Code section 47 (the “litigation privilege”) applies to allegations of violations of the state’s “unfair business practice” statute (Business & Professions Code section 17200).

Keading v. Keading
(2021,1st District – 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 338)

Kemps v. Beshwate
(2009, 5th District – 180 Cal.App.4th 1012, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 480)
Kenne v. Stennis
(2014, 2d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 953, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 198)
Kettler v. Gould
(2018, 2d District – 22 Cal.App.5th 593, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 580)
Key v. Tyler
(2019, 2d District – 34 Cal.App.5th 505, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 224)
Kieu Hoang v. Phong Minh Tran
(2021, 2d District – 60 Cal.App.5th 513, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 567)
Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
(2021, ourth District – 67 Cal.App.5th 263, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 918)
Kinsella v. Kinsella
(2020, 4th District – 45 Cal.App.5th 442, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 725)
Km v. Access Insurance Company
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 595, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 711)
Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky LLP
(2013, 4th District – 215 Cal.App.4th 534, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 599)
Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton
(2006, 4th District – 145 Cal.App.4th 1532, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 712)
Kreeger v. Wanland
(2006, 3d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 779)
Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Data Base, Inc.
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 941, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 48)
Kunysz v. Sandler
(2007, 4th District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 779)
Kurwa v. Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP
(2007, 2d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 841, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 256)
Kurz v. Syrus Systems, LLC
(2013, 6th District – 221 Cal.App.4th 748, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 554)
Kyle v. Carmon
(1999, 3d District – 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 303)
Plaintiff school superintendent dismissed his complaint with prejudice against our client, Shelly Carmon, after we filed an anti-SLAPP motion but before the court had ruled on the motion. The trial court issued an order granting the motion to strike and awarding attorneys fees and costs. The Court of appeal held that the trial court’s adjudication of the merits of the motion supported affirmance of the award of attorney’s fees and costs.

 

L

L.A. Taxi Coop. v. Indep. Taxi Owners Ass’n of L.A.
(2015, 2d District – 239 Cal.App.4th 918, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 579)
L.G. v. M.B.
(2018, 2d District – 25 Cal.App.5th 211, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 494)
La Jolla Group II v. Bruce
(2012, 5th District – 211 Cal.App.4th 461, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 716)
Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co. (“Morehouse I”)
(1995, 1st District – 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46)
A university offering a Ph.D. in “sensuality” sued a newspaper for libel for a series of articles on the university in relation to hearings by the county board of supervisors on whether the university was violating local health, land use, and other government regulations, and a suit by the county to enjoin alleged violations. The lower court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co. (“Morehouse II”)
(1995, 1st District – 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 542)
A defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike a complaint is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs only for work related to the motion, not for work unrelated to the motion. [Note: This opinion was issued before the 1997 amendment of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, requiring that the anti-SLAPP statute be construed broadly, and before the Supreme Court decision in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, which held that courts, “wherever possible, should interpret the First Amendment in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom of speech, not to its curtailment.”]
Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University
(2019, 6th District – 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 244 Cal.Rptr.3d 238)
Lam v. Ngo
(2001, 4th District – 91 Cal.App.4th 832, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 582)
Vietnamese-Americans demonstrated against the display of North Vietnam’s flag in a store window. One group focused attention on a city councilman, Lam, who was perceived to be indifferent. Lam owned a restaurant, where demonstrators gathered. After the restaurant’s landlord, Ngo, allowed the demonstrators to gather in the parking lot, restaurant and patron property was intentionally damaged. Lam sued Ngo and 1,500 “Doe” demonstrators for damages and obtained a TRO, later a preliminary injunction, against the demonstrators. Ngo filed a motion to strike the complaint against him pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Ngo had already lost in the contest over the preliminary injunction and had not presented anything “new.” The appellate court reverses. Held: the granting of the preliminary injunction did not have the effect of res judicata with respect to the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Moreover, Lam could not be held personally liable for acts committed by others absent evidence that he authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious acts, incited lawless action, or gave specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats, and no such evidence was presented to counter the anti-SLAPP motion. Nevertheless, violent acts associated with the protest are not protected by the First Amendment and do support tort liability, and thus the case is remanded to allow the plaintiff to substitute named individuals who can be shown to have engaged in tortious acts.
Lanz v. Goldstone
(2015, 1st District – 243 Cal.App.4th 441, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 227)
Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang
(2009, 2d District – 178 Cal.App,4th 869, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 771)
Lee v. Fick
(2005, 2d District -135 Cal.App.4th 89, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 375)
Plaintiff high school athletic coach filed a lawsuit for libel, slander, and other causes of action for statements defendant parents made in a letter to the school board, oral statements defendants made to other parents, and oral statements made to the school board while requesting that it reconsider its decision to retain the coach. The trial court granted defendants anti-SLAPP motion for the libel cause of action, finding that the letter was written to prompt official action and was privileged under Civil Code section 47(b). However it denied the motion to strike the remaining causes of action.
The appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion to strike the libel claim, but reversed the trial court’s denial as to the other claims, holding that defendants’ oral comments to school officials, interested parties (other parents), and the school board were all privileged.
Lee v. Kim
(2019, 2d District – 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 546)
Lee v. Silveira
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 705)
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Diaz
(2005, 2d District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1517, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 139)
Leegin brought an action for fraud against Diaz, an employee, alleging that Diaz had knowingly filed a fraudulent worker’s compensation claim. The trial court granted Diaz’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that Leegin is not likely to prevail on its claim.
Lefebvre v. Lefebvre
(2011, 2d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 696, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 171)
Lennar Homes of California, Inc. v. Stephens
(2015, 4th District – 232 Cal.App.4th 673, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 638)
Levy v. City of Santa Monica
(2004, 2d District – 114 Cal.App.4th 1252, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 507)
After the Levys constructed a backyard playhouse, a neighbor complained to her city councillor, who inquired of planning department officials whether the construction conformed to regulations. Eventually a city employee notified the Levys that the playhouse was an unapproved structure and had to be removed or modified. The Levys sued the city and the councillor for violation of a city ordinance prohibiting councillors from giving orders to any subordinate of the city manager. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied on the grounds that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply. The appellate court reverses, holding that the city councillor’s communication to the planning department was advocacy protected by the First Amendment, not an order, and therefore covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Li v. Jin
(2022, 6th District – 83 Cal.App.5th 481, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 717)
Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc.
(2003, 2d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 536)
KCOP secretly recorded private consultations between Lieberman, a physician, and reporters posing as patients. The recordings were broadcast by KCOP to support allegations that Lieberman was improperly prescribing controlled drugs. Lieberman sued KCOP for violation of Penal Code section 632, which prohibits electronic eavesdropping on a confidential communication without consent of all parties and provides for monetary damages. The trial court denied KCOP’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, finding that Lieberman had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation of section 632. The trial court affirms. The court concludes that the secret recording was an act in furtherance of free speech inasmuch as the recording was incorporated into a news report, and therefore plaintiff’s cause of action is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Nevertheless, plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on his complaint since (1) a section 632 violation occurs the moment a confidential communication is secretly recorded, regardless of whether it is subsequently disclosed, and (2) there is no affirmative defense in the fact that the secret recording was part of legitimate newsgathering.
Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc.
(2008, 1st District – 163 Cal.App.4th 620, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)
Lin v. City of Pleasanton
(2009, 1st District – 175 Cal.App.4th 1143, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 730)
Linsco/Private Ledger, Inc. v. Investors Arbitration Services, Inc.
(1996, 1st District – 50 Cal.App.4th 1633, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 613)
Note: This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
Securities broker-dealers sought to enjoin the “unauthorized practice of law” by companies that represent individual investors in arbitration proceedings with brokers. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that disputes over individual investment losses are not matters of public concern and therefore the brokers’ complaint was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statue.
Litinsky v. Kaplan
(2019, 2d District – 40 Cal.App.5th 970, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 62)
Liu v. Moore
(1999, 2d District – 69 Cal.App.4th 745, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 807)
A SLAPP plaintiff cannot avoid liability for defendant’s attorney’s fees by dismissing its complaint prior to the hearing on defendant’s motion to strike the complaint. The court must still decide the merits of the motion to strike in order to determine whether the defendant is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to fees.
Lockton v. O’Rourke
(2010, 2d District – 184 Cal.App.4th 1051, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 392)
Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 675, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 220)
Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht
(2015, 1st District – 235 Cal.App.4th 496, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
Long Beach Unified School Dist. v. Margaret Williams, LLC
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 87, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 354)
Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee
(2013, 1st District – 213 Cal.App.4th 635, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 641)
Ludwig v. Superior Court
(1995, 4th District -37 Cal.App.4th 8, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 350)
City, hoping to develop a shopping mall, sued a competing developer for interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition, alleging that the developer encouraged citizens to speak out at public meetings and file law suits against the city’s proposed mall. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed.
Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez
(2015, 2d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 784)

 

M

M.F. Farming Co. v. Couch Distributing Co., Inc.
(2012, 6th District – 207 Cal.App.4th 180, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 160)
M.G., a minor, v. Time Warner, Inc.
(2001, 4th District – 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504)
An article in Sports Illustrated about adult coaches who sexually molest youths included a photograph of a Little League team, five players of which were molested by the manager. M.G. (and others) appeared in the photo and sued for invasion of privacy. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike is affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the anti-SLAPP statute applied to the publication of the story. Time Warner argued that the photo was not private and its publication met the test of newsworthiness. Plaintiffs argued the photo was private and not newsworthy. The court concluded that plaintiffs had demonstrated the likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim, thus fulfilling their burden under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Macias v. Hartwell
(1997, 2d District – 55 Cal.App.4th 669, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 222)
An unsuccessful candidate for a labor union office sued the successful candidate, alleging that defendant’s campaign flyers were defamatory. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed. The “anti-SLAPP law applies to defamation actions arising out of statements made in a union election.”
Major v. Silna
(2005, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 1485, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 875)
In connection with an election, defendant Silna mailed a letter to a number of Malibu residents supporting certain candidates. Plaintiff Major filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Malibu Municipal Code. Silna filed an anti-SLAPP motion which the trial court denied, finding that Major’s action fell within the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17(b) exemption to the anti-SLAPP law.
The appellate court reversed, concluding that section 425.17 did not apply because subdivision (d)(2) excepts from this exemption “[a]ny action against a person … based upon the … dissemination … or similar promotion of any … political … work.” The court further held that Major could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits because he lacked standing to seek injunctive relief.
Maleti v. Wickers
(2022, 6th District – 82 Cal.App. 5th 181)
Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co.
(2010, 4th District – 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 487)
Malin v. Singer
(2013, 2d District – 217 Cal.App.4th 1283, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 292)
Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc.
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1040, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 457)
Manlin v. Milner
(2022, 2d District – 82 Cal. App. 5th 613)
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (“Mann I”)
(2004, 4th District – 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 215)
The court holds that where a defendant has shown that a substantial part of a cause of action constitutes speech or petitioning activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff need only show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim. Once the plaintiff makes this showing, the court need not determine whether the plaintiff can substantiate all theories for that cause of action.
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (“Mann II”)
(2006, 4th District – 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 607)
Plaintiff challenged an attorney fees award, arguing that defendants were not prevailing parties within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (c) because they were unsuccessful in striking three of the four challenged causes of action. The appellate court held that “a party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the motion,” and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining defendants were prevailing parties on the anti-SLAPP motion. However, it found that the lower court erred in failing to reduce the fees to reflect that defendants were only partially successful on the motion and ordered the fees reduced by 50%.
Maranatha Corrections, LLC v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(2008, 3d District – 158 Cal.App.4th 1075, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 614)
Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffy
(2006, 2d District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1262, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 867)
Plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution action against defendant and its counsel. Each defendant filed anti-SLAPP motions, which were denied on the basis that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. The appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish probable cause.
Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 488)
Marshall v. Webster
(2020, 3d District – 54 Cal.App.5th 275, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 530)
Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 113 Cal.App.4th 181, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 494)
Martinez sued Metabolife for personal injury, alleging that the injury was caused by ingestion one of Metabolife’s products. Metabolife filed a special motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the complaint targeted commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. This case was decided shortly before Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 became effective (Jan. 1, 2004). Section 425.17 states that the anti-SLAPP motion cannot be applied to any complaint against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services where the cause of action arises from advertising or other commercial speech. (See also Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2004); Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc., 3d District Court of Appeal (2004).)
Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(2011, 4th District – 198 Cal. App.4th 611, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 410)
Matson v. Dvorak
(1995, 3d District – 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880)
An unsuccessful candidate for a local legislative office sued a rival candidate and several contributors to an organization that published a flyer accusing him of having “hundreds of dollars of unpaid fines and citations” issued by the police, alleging libel and invasion of privacy. The trial court’s granting of defendant’s special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
(2002, 2d District – 99 Cal.App.4th 1179, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 794)
Defendant law firm prosecuted a case for copyright infringement against Mattel, maker of the Barbie doll. A federal district court found for Mattel, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the trial court that the case for copyright infringement was without factual foundation. Mattel then sued the law firm in state court for malicious prosecution. The trial court denied a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeal rules that an action for malicious prosecution qualifies for treatment under the anti-SLAPP statute and affirms the trial court’s judgment that the plaintiff had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its action.
Maughan v. Google Technology Inc.
(2006, 2d District – 143 Cal.App.2d Dist 1284, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 861)
McGarry v. University of San Diego
(2007, 4th District – 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 467)
McNair v. Superior Court
(2016, 2d District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1227, 211 Cal Rptr 3d 919)
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45)
(modified 3-20-2020 – 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 237)
Medley Capital Corporation v. Security National Guaranty, Inc.
(2017, 1st District – 17 Cal.App.5th 33, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 736
Melbostad v. Fisher
(2008, 1st District – 165 Cal.App.4th 987, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 354)
Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc.
(2010, 2d District – 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 294)
Mendoza v. Hamzeh
(2013, 2d District – 215 Cal.App.4th 799, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 832)
Mendoza v. Wichmann
(2011, 3d District – 194 Cal.App.4th 1430, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 823)
Metcalf v. U-Haul International, Inc.
(2004, 4th District – 118 Cal.App.4th 1261, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 686)
Metcalf sued U-Haul for unfair competition, alleging that it consistently overstated the size of its rental trailers in advertisements. U-Haul filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the complaint arose from its constitutionally protected right to commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirms. At issue on appeal is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, which prevents defendants sued for false advertising from using the anti-SLAPP motion and which became effective after the complaint in this case was filed. The court rejects appellant’s contentions that section 425.17 is unconstitutionally discriminatory and that in any event it cannot apply to a case in progress.
Midland Pacific Building Corp. v. King
(2007, 2d District – 153 Cal.App.4th 499, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 129)
Miller v. City of Los Angeles
(2008, 2d District – 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 510)
Miller v. Filter
(2007, 3d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 652, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 671)
Miller v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
(2019, 1st District – 41 Cal.App.5th 247, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 124)
Mireskandari v. Gallagher
(2021, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 346, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 371)
Mission Beverage Company v. Pabst Brewing Company, LLC
(2017, 2d District – 15 Cal.App.5th 686, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 547)
Mission Oaks Ranch, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara
(1998, 2d District – 65 Cal.App.4th 713, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 1)
Note:  This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
Mission Oaks applied to the county for a tract map for property development and agreed to pay for an environmental impact report (EIR). The draft EIR found that Mission Oaks’ project would have numerous adverse and unmitigable consequences. Mission Oaks sued the county for breach of contract, alleging that it was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the county and the consultant that prepared the EIR. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is upheld. “Here Mission Oaks is simply a disgruntled developer who does not like the findings prepared by the independent environmental consultants for the County and the public. Mission Oaks seeks to stifle the EIR prepared for the County and the public. [The] SLAPP [statute] is designed to preclude such attempts to silence those who speak out on matters of public interest before legislative bodies.” The court distinguished this case from Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. C.S.I. Telecommunications Engineers. 
Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Verjil
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 892, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 524)
Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies, LLC
(2021, 2nd District – 70 Cal.App.5th 207, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 211)
MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich
(3/12/2018, 4th District – 21 Cal.App.5th 167, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 198)
Mobile Medical Services, etc. v. Rajaram
(2015, 4th District – 241 Cal.App.4th 164, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 568)
Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club, Inc. v. City of Lancaster
(2012, 2d District –  208 Cal.App.4th 124, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 122)
Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 483
(1999, 6th District – 69 Cal.App.4th 1057, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 10)
Hotel sued union alleging defamatory statements by a union official in a news report of a labor dispute at the hotel. The trial court granted the union’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms, holding that plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case of slander in its pleadings.                         
Moore v. Kaufman
(2010, 2d District – 189 Cal.App.4th 604, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 196)
Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District v. Weir
(2004, 1st District – 115 Cal.App.4th 477, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 13)
After a homeowners association submitted a rebuttal argument against a tax increase for a voter information pamphlet, the fire district sought a court order modifying or eliminating certain statements in the association’s argument. The association filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the fire district’s petition and then denied the association’s request for attorney fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute on the grounds that, since the mandamus proceeding had been resolved on the merits, the anti-SLAPP motion was moot. On appeal the fire district contends that challenges to statements in voter pamphlets are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute and that the statute must be “harmonized” with provisions in the Elections Code authorizing legal challenges to false or inaccurate voter pamphlets. The appellate court rules that the anti-SLAPP statute is not inconsistent with the Elections Code, that it does apply in this case, and the association is entitled to fees and costs.
Morin v. Rosenthal
(2004, 2d District – 122 Cal.App.4th 673, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 149)
Moriarty v. Laramar Management Corp.
(2014, 1st District – 224 Cal.App.4th 125, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 461)
The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that it was untimely. Defendants had argued that they could not have filed the motion any sooner because they had a motion pending to transfer the case to another district of the superior court. The appellate court affirms.
Morris Cerullo World Evangelism v. Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC
(2021, 4th District – 67 Cal.App.5th 1149, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 164)
Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2007, 2d District – 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 885)
Moss Bros. Toy, Inc. v. Ruiz
(2018, 4th District – 27 Cal.App.5th 424, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 292)
Muddy Waters, LLC v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County
(2021, 4th District – 62 Cal.App.5th 905, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 204)
Mundy v. Lenc
(2012, 2d District – 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 464)
Murphy v. Twitter Inc.
(2021, 1st District – 60 Cal.App.5th 12, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 360)
Murray v. Tran
(2020, 4th District – 55 Cal.App.5th 10, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 231)
Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC
(2021, 2nd District – 72 Cal.App.5th 802, 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 625)

 

N-O

Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 109 Cal.App.4th 39, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 420)
This class action against Twin Laboratories, which manufactures and markets nutritional and dietary supplements, alleged violation of various statutes because of false advertising of product ingredients. Twin Labs moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that its advertising was commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. The trial court agreed that defendant’s labeling and advertising were protected commercial speech but also concluded that plaintiffs had established a probability of prevailing on their claims, therefore defeating the motion. The appellate court affirms the denial but on the grounds that a list of product ingredients is not commercial speech protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Nam v. Regents of University of California
(2016, 3d District – 1 Cal.App.5th 1176, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 687)
Navarro v. IHOP Properties, Inc.
(2005, 4th District – 134 Cal.App.4th 834, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
Plaintiff sued IHOP for fraud alleging that IHOP never intended to keep its promise made in a stipulated judgment to consider offers to purchase her franchise “without undue delay.”; IHOP appealed the trial court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that 1) the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 exemption did not apply because any promises or statements made by defendant were to induce settlement of a lawsuit and were not made during a commercial transaction; 2) the complaint arose from defendant’s statements in, or in connection with a judicial proceeding; and 3) plaintiff did not prove a probability of prevailing on her claim because the statements IHOP made during a stipulated judgment were protected by the litigation privilege and she failed to show causation.
Navellier v. Sletten
(2003, 1st District – 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201)
Plaintiffs brought actions for fraud and breach of contract. Defendant moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, the motion was denied, and the appellate court affirmed on the grounds that the causes of action — negotiation and execution of a release agreement and pursuit of counterclaims in litigation — were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (unpublished opinion). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the causes of action were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and remanded the case to the court of appeal with instructions to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. (See Navellier v. Sletten, California Supreme Court.) Specifically, the court was directed to consider whether plaintiff had established a probability of prevailing on its complaint. In this opinion the court holds that the plaintiffs have not established a probability of prevailing on their claims and thus reverses the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.
Nelson v. Tucker Ellis, LLP
(2020, 1st District – 48 Cal.App.5th 827, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 250)
Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist.
(2012, 4th District – 204 Cal.App.4th 65, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 446)

Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
(2021, 4th District – 71 Cal.App.5th 769, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 631)

Neville v. Chudacoff
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 383)
Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 216) (ordered published 12/26/16)
(re-appealed, 2018, 4th District – 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 540)
Nguyen-Lam v. Cuoung Cao
(2009, 4th District – 171 Cal.App.4th 858, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 205)
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council v. Warmington Hercules Associates
(2004, 1st District – 124 Cal.App.4th 296, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 918)
A carpenters’ union and individuals sued building contractors for failure to pay them prevailing wages under city’s Redevelopment Agency’s policy, alleging unfair business practices. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the lawsuit was retaliation for their petition to a state agency for a determination that they were not required to pay prevailing wages.  The motion was denied by the court on the grounds that the cause of action did not arise from filing a petition with the state but from failure to pay prevailing wages.  On appeal plaintiffs argued that the court was required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 to affirm the trial court’s denial.  Section 425.17 was intended to curb abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute by providing that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to “any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public.”  The appellate court affirms the trial court’s ruling, holding that the plaintiffs’ complaint meets the conditions of section 425.17.  (See also Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc..)
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.
(2006, 1st District – 143 Cal.App.1st 1284, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 861)
Nunez v. Pennisi
(2015, 6th District – 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 912)
Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula(2008, 2d District – 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210)
O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC
(2019, 1st District – 42 Cal.App.5th 546, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 596)
Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
(2020, 1st District – 54 Cal.App.5th 738, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 170)
Ojjeh v. Brown
(2019, 1st District – 43 Cal.App.5th 1027, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 146)
Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2017, 2d District – 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 475)
Olaes v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
(2006, 3d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 1501, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 467)
Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against his former employer, alleging he had been defamed during its investigation of sexual harassment complaints against him. The trial court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply because a sexual harassment investigation within a private company does not constitute an official proceeding, and an investigation by a private employer concerning a small group of people does not involve an issue of public interest.
Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc.
(2014, 6th District – 230 Cal.App.4th 859, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 129)
Olivares v. Pineda
(2019, 1st District – 40 Cal.App.5th 343, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 213)
Olive Properties, L.P. v. Coolwaters Enterprises, Inc.
(2015, 2d District – 241 Cal.App.4th 1169, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 524)
Olsen v. Harbison
(2005, 3d District – 134 Cal.App.4th 278, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 684)
Co-counsel sued each other in a dispute over fee sharing. Nine months after a second amended complaint was filed, defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court found the anti-SLAPP motion was untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after service of the complaint. Harbison appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as frivolous and sanctioned Harbison.
Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP
(2017, 2d District – 18 Cal.App.5th 95, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 246)
Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Nativo Lopez
(2010, 4th District – 190 Cal.App.4th 1248, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 127)
Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc.
(2007, 1st District – 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29)
Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Props, LLC
(2012, 4th District – 212 Cal.App.4th 97, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 117)
(Opinion filed on 11/19/12; modified on 11/2712; and certified for publication on 12/18/12)

 

P

Padres L.P. v. Henderson
(2004, 4th District – 114 Cal.App.4th 495, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 584)
The owners of the Padres baseball club filed claims for malicious prosecution against attorney Henderson arising from a series of lawsuits Henderson had filed challenging actions taken by the City of San Diego, in collaboration with the Padres, to develop a new baseball park. Henderson filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike all claims. The trial court dismissed claims based on one of Henderson’s lawsuits (plaintiffs had conceded the claim was time-barred) and denied the special motion to strike the claims based on other lawsuits filed by Henderson. The appellate court reverses in part. The court holds that no absolute privilege applies to Henderson’s filing of the lawsuits against the Padres (and thus distinguishes City of Long Beach v. Bozek, California Supreme Court, 1982). The court concludes, however, that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated the requisite lack of probable cause in support of two of their three claims for malicious prosecution.
Paiva v. Nichols
(2008, 6th District – 168 Cal.App.4th 1007, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 838)
Panakosta v. Hammer Lane Management, LLC
(2011, 3d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 612, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 835)
Paredes v. CREDIT CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
(2022, 6th District – 82 Cal. App. 5th 410)
Park 100 Investment Group II, LLC v. Gregory R. Ryan
(2009, 2d District – 180 Cal.App.4th 795, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 218)
Pasternack v. McCullough
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 1347, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 81)
(re-appealed, 4th District – — Cal.Rptr.3d —)
Patel v. Chavez
(2020, 2d District – 48 Cal.App.5th 484, 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 829)
Paterno v. Superior Court
(2008, 4th District – 163 Cal.App.4th 1342, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 244)
Paul for Council v. Hanyecz
(2001, 2d District – 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 864)
Paul was a candidate for city council. He sued defendants, alleging that they interfered with his candidacy by contributing to an opponent in a manner that violated the state’s Political Reform Act. Defendants filed a special motion to strike the allegation. They effectively conceded the illegal nature of their method of campaign contributions, but argued that their campaign money laundering was nevertheless “in furtherance” of their First Amendment rights, and thus was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses, holding that such illegal activity is not a valid exercise of constitutional rights as contemplated by the anti-SLAPP statute. (See also The Governor Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers Alliance.
Paul v. Friedman
(2002, 2d District 95 Cal.App.4th 853, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 82)
Former clients sued Paul, a securities broker, alleging fraud, negligence, and violation of securities laws. Paul was completely vindicated in an arbitration proceeding; in addition, the court awarded sanctions against the plaintiffs for filing a “frivolous claim for which there was no factual foundation.” Paul then sued his former clients and their lawyer, Friedman, for malicious prosecution and a variety of other causes arising from Friedman’s investigation of Paul during the aribtration proceeding and disclosure of personal information. Friedman filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, on the grounds that the investigation and disclosure of information were related to “an issue under consideration or review” in the arbitration proceeding. The trial court granted Friedman’s motion to strike all tort and contract claims but refused to strike Paul’s claim that Friedman has breached a confidentiality agreement reached at the commencement of arbitration for the earlier lawsuit. In a complex decision the appellate court rules that Paul’s tort and contract claims cannot be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute since Friedman had not met his burden of proof, i.e., he had not made the required prima facie showing that Paul’s claims arose from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc.
(2006, 6th District – 139 Cal.App.4th 659, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 148)
Lynch brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Paulus’s action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional interference with contract. The court granted the motion and awarded Lynch attorney fees and costs. Paulus appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Paulus failed to make a prima facie showing of lack of probable cause for his malicious prosecution claim. The court further found that Paulus had made no independent factual or legal arguments regarding the merits of his other claims in the trial court, nor had he specifically addressed the matter in his opening brief, and thus deemed Paulus to have abandoned any challenge to the order striking those two claims.
Pech v. Doniger
(2022, 2nd District – 75 Cal.App.5th 443, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 47)
People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc.
(2001, 1st District – 87 Cal.App.4th 442, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 618)
The district attorneys of two counties sued the manufacturer of a weight-loss product, alleging that advertising claims violated various state statutes. Defendant filed a special motion to strike, arguing that the action was prosecuted to chill its exercise of free speech. Defendant acknowledged that the anti-SLAPP statute expressly does not apply to an enforcement action brought by a district attorney (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (d)), but challenged the constitutionality of this exclusion. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms, holding that the exclusion does not violate the “equal protection” clause of either the U.S. or California constitutions.
People v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
(2014, 1st District – 228 Cal.App.4th 1382, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 496)
People ex rel. 20th Century Insurance Co. v. Building Permit Consultants, Inc.
(2000, 2d District – 86 Cal.App.4th 280, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 71)
An insurance company sued a company that assisted individuals in preparing estimates of damages from an earthquake. Plaintiff alleged that defendants arranged with homeowners to artificially increase the estimates on the condition they receive up to 50 percent of the insurance payments. Defendants filed a special motion to strike, arguing that the estimates were prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore were exercises in the right of petition. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. “At the time defendants created and submitted their reports and claims, there was no ‘issue under consideration’ pending before any official proceedings.”
People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin
(2021, 4th District – 66 Cal.App.5th 493, 280 Cal.Rptr.3d 858)
People ex rel. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Anapol
(2012, 2d District – 211 Cal.App.4th 809)
People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar
(2004, 4th District – 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 844)
The state attorney general filed a complaint against Brar to obtain an order to stop Brar from filing lawsuits under the state’s unfair competition law. Brar moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeal dismisses the motion as friviolous inasmuch as the anti-SLAPP statute, by its own provisions, does not apply to actions brought by public prosecutors.
People ex rel. v. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp.
(2012, 4th District – 210 Cal.App.4th 487, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 361)
Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
(2005, 1st District – 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 31)
This case arose from the collapse of a fraudulent investment scheme. Plaintiffs — investors who lost millions and a bankruptcy trustee representing entities that were used to perpetrate the scheme — sued defendant law firm for conduct which allegedly helped advance the fraudulent scheme. The trial court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed in part, finding the motion should have been granted in part because plaintiffs’ claims were partially based on positions the firm took in court, or in anticipation of litigation with the SEC, and some plaintiffs did not establish a probability of prevailing. Specifically, the court concluded the bankruptcy trustee’s claims on behalf of one entity were barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and the investors’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Personal Court Reporters, Inc. v. Rand
(2012, 2d District – 205 Cal.App.4th 182, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 301)
Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Bernard
(2002, 2d District – 101 Cal.App.4th 211, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 647)
A landlord notified tenants to vacate their parking spaces for construction. The tenants association encouraged tenants to send the landlord a letter protesting that they could be forced to vacate their parking spaces only after a “legal process.” In the aftermath, two of the landlord’s locks were broken. The landlord sued the tenants association and certain tenants for damages on a variety of claims. Defendants filed a demurrer and notified the plaintiff of their intention to file a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. On the eve of the deadline to file the anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff dismissed all but two individual defendants, and shortly thereafter filed an amended complaint. The trial court dismissed the case under the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) and thus did not conduct a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants filed a motion for attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute; the motion was denied on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. Held on appeal: “the trial court has jurisdiction to award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant whose SLAPP motion was not heard solely because the matter was dismissed before defendants obtained a ruling on the SLAPP motion.”
Pfeiffer Venice Properties v. Superior Court
(2003, 2d District – 107 Cal.App.4th 761, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 400)
Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig
(2007, 4th District – 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 504)
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(2004, 1st District – 119 Cal.App.4th 120, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 926)
Plaintiff brought an action for unfair business practice under Business & Professions Code § 17500, alleging that Tyson made false and deceptive representations about its chicken products sold in California. Tyson filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the cause of action arose from Tyson’s exercise of its right of free speech “in connection with a public issue”. The trial court granted the motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of success on its claims. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, enacted while the appeal was pending, applies to the case. Section 425.17 provides that the anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint cannot be applied to “any cause of action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, … arising from any statement or conduct by that person,” as long as certain conditions are met. Moreover, section 425.17 contains a retroactivity clause that operated as a repeal of the trial court’s order.  (See also Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.)
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Foti
(2003, 1st District – 107 Cal.App.4th 345, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 46)
Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief, asking the court to apply to defendants an earlier injunction limiting demonstrations outside its clinic. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that defendants had waived protection of the anti-SLAPP statute by stipulating that the present action could be filed. The appellate court affirms the denial. Held: the question whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies in this case became moot once the trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment because in denying summary judgment the trial court impliedly found that plaintiff had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its claim.
Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
(2008, 4th District – 166 Cal.App.4th 772, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 95)
Plumley v. Mockett
(2008, 2d District – 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 822)
Pott v. Lazarin
(2020, 6th District – 47 Cal.App.5th 141, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 631)
Prediwave Corporation v. SImpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
(2009, 6th District – 179 Cal.App.4th 1204, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 245)
Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (“Premier Medical I”)
(2006, 2d District – 136 Cal.App.4th, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 43)
Defendants petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to determine whether plaintiff was improperly representing treating physicians in WCAB proceedings. Plaintiff sued, alleging that the defendants were engaged in anticompetitive activity. Arguing that the complaint was based entirely on the defendants’ constitutional right to petition the WCAB, defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the constitutional right to petition includes the basic act of seeking administrative action.
Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (“Premier Medical II”)
(2008, 2d District – 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 695)
Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3
(2011, 3d District- 195 Cal.App.4th 962; 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 220)
Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
(2014, 1st District – 226 Cal.App.4th 643, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 238)

 

Q-R

Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea
(2009, 4th District- 175 Cal. App. 4th 1363; 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 196)
Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Foods and Commercial Workers Union Local 8
(2011, 5th District – 192 Cal.App.4th 200, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 878)
Ralphs Grocery Company v. Victory Consultants, Inc.
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 305)
certified for publication
Ramona Unified School District v. Tsiknas
(2005, 4th Distict – 135 Cal.App.4th 510, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 381)
Ramona Unified School District (District) sued Neighborhood Alliance for Safe Ramona Schools (Alliance) for abuse of process and barratry stemming from Alliance’s writ petition challenging a District construction project. The trial court granted Alliance’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed. It held that the gravamen of the abuse of process claim was actually for malicious prosecution, and was barred under City of Long Beach v. Bozek, California Supreme Court, 1982, which held a government entity may not institute a malicious prosecution proceeding against a former plaintiff. To succeed on the barratry claim, plaintiffs had to show the defendants “excited” at least three groundless lawsuits, however defendants’ amendments to their writ petition did not constitute separate proceedings.
Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson
(2016, 2d District – 247 Cal.App.4th 1080, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 46)
Ratcliff v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
(2021, 2nd District – 63 Cal.App.5th 869, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 227)
Reed v. Gallagher
(2016, 3d District – 248 Cal.App.4th 841, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 178)
Renewable Resources Coalition , Inc. v. Pebble Mines Corp.
(2013, 2d District – 218 Cal.App.4th 384, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 901)
Reyes v. Kruger
(2020, 6th District – 55 Cal.App.5th 58, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 549)
Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
(2004, 2d Distict – 116 Cal.App.4th 135, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 333)
Several individuals sued Sony Pictures under the state’s unfair competition statute, alleging that Sony falsely portrayed a person as a film critic and attributed to him laudatory reviews of its films. The studio filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint; the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that advertisements for films, as commercial speech, are not protected under the First Amendment. The appellate court (in a split decision) affirms.
Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, Inc.
(2019, 1st District – 32 Cal.App.5th 458, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 816)
Rivera v. First Databank, Inc.
(2010, 4th District – 187 Cal.App.4th 709, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 1)
Rivero v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
(2003, 1st District – 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 81)
Rivero sued numerous individuals and entities, alleging defamation and other claims arising from statements made by the union as part of its contract negotiation campaign. Rivero, a supervising janitor at a university, had been accused of theft, extortion, and favoritism by employees he supervised. Although the charges were not substantiated by an investigation, Rivero’s position was terminated and he was assigned work as a pot scrubber. During contract negotiations with the university the union distributed flyers that claimed union janitors had stood up to their “abusive supervisor” and caused his firing. The union filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the statements made by the union during contract negotiations do not fall under activity protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Most of the court’s opinion focuses on the phrase “in connection with a public issue” in the anti-SLAPP statute.
RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc.
(2020, 4th District – 56 Cal.App.5th 413, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 425)
Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Association
(2003, 2d District – 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 546)
Roberts was a candidate in an election for municipal court judge in Los Angeles. The bar association evaluates all candidates in contested elections for judgeships through its judicial evaluation committee. A candidate may request disqualification of any member of the committee who the candidate believes has a potential conflict of interest. Roberts objected to seven members of the committee. The day after the committee publicly issued an evaluation of Roberts as “not qualified,” Roberts sued the association for breach of contract and fraud based on the allegation that one of the committee members who should have been disqualified at her request was actually present during committee deliberations. The association filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint; the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the suit, which sought damages in connection with the evaluation process, was not a SLAPP. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the evaluation process is “inextricably intertwined with and part and parcel of the evaluations,” which are constitutionally protected speech. Thus, the anti-SLAPP statute applies as much to the evaluation process as to the evaluations themselves.
Robertson v. Rodriguez
(1995, 2d District – 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 464)
A city councilman, alleging libel, sued proponents of a campaign to recall him. At issue was a mailer stating that the plaintiff had been fined by the city for operating an illegal business out of his home. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
Robinzine v. Vicory
(2006, 1st District – 148 Cal.App.4th 1416, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 65)
Robles v. Chalilpoyil
(2010, 6th District – 181 Cal.App.4th 566, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 628)
Roche v. Hyde
(2020, 1st District – 51 Cal.App.5th 757, 265 Cal.Rptr.3d 301)
Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC
(2014, 2d District – 225 Cal.App.4th 660, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 431)
Rohde v. Wolf
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 28, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 348)
Rosenaur v. Scherer
(2001, 3d District – 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 674)
Rosenaur launched a ballot initiative to permit commercial development of land he owned. The measure lost after a bitterly fought campaign. Rosenaur sued defendants, opponents of the measure, alleging defamation. The trial court granted a special motion to strike the allegation. The appellate court affirms, holding that the statements alleged to be defamatory could not reasonably be interpreted as factual and therefore plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case for defamation. Rosenaur also appealed the award of attorney fees to defendants, arguing that defendants are not entitled to recover attorney fees because defense counsel agreed to a partial pro bono fee. Held: neither the plain language of the anti-SLAPP statute nor the policies underlying it justifies denying a prevailing defendant attorney fees when representation is pro bono.
Ross v. Kish
(2006, 2d District – 145 Cal.App.4th 188, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 484)
Rudisill v. California Coastal Com.
(2019, 2d District – 35 Cal.App.5th 1062, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 840)
Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Association
(2005, 4th District – 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133)
Ruiz alleged that two letters written by HVCA’s attorney defamed him. The trial court denied HVCA’s anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that the letters were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the two letters were communications regarding an issue of public interest. The court further found that Ruiz had not shown a probability of prevailing: he failed to show the second letter was defamatory, or that either letter had been published. However, the court remanded with directions for the trial court to reconsider Ruiz’s request for discovery only on the issue of publication of the first letter and decide the anti-SLAPP motion accordingly.
Russell v. Foglio
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 653, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 87)

 

S

S.A. v. Maiden
(2014, 4th District – 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 567)
Salma v. Capon
(2008, 1st District – 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 873)
Sanchez v. Bezos
(June 30, 2022, B309364, B312143)
San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction, Inc.
(2015, 4th District – 240 Cal.App.4th 611, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 559)
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association
(2004, 1st District – 125 Cal.App.4th 343, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 724)
A complaint seeking judicial review of an action or decision by a public entity is not subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The action is not itself an exercise of the public entity’s right of free speech or petition.
Sandlin v. McLaughlin
(2020, 4th District – 50 Cal.App.5th 805, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 874)
Santa Barbara County Coalition Against Automobile Subsidies v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
(2008, 2d District – 167 Cal.App.4th 1229, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 714)
Santa Clara Waste Water Company v. County of Ventura Environmental Health Division
(2017, 2d District – 17 Cal.App.5th 1082, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 885)
Santa Monica Rent Control Board v. Pearl Street, LLC
(2003, 2d District – 109 Cal.App.4th 1308, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 903)
The Board filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that state and local rent control law were violated by defendants. At issue is whether, in light of facts presented to the Board, defendants are entitled to charge market rate for rental of certain units. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the basis of the suit — defendants’ filing of notices of their intention to re-rent units at market rates — is not an act by defendants in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech and therefore is not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Save Westwood Village v. Luskin
(2014, 2d District – 233 Cal.App.4th 135, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 328)
Scalzo v. American Express Co.
(2010, 2d District – 185 Cal.App.4th 91, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 638)
Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco
(2008, 1st Distrct – 168 Cal.App.4th 992, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 880)
Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc.
(2002, 2d District – 97 Cal.App.4th 227, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 313)
UDR is a consumer reporting agency that gathers and sells information about unlawful detainer cases. Schoendorf, a tenant, after unsuccessfully attempting to have UDR amend information about her in UDR’s records, sued UDR for acts of negligence. The trial court granted the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion, on the grounds that UDR had a constitutionally protected right to disseminate information found in court records. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the information gathered by UDR does not come exclusively from court records. In addition, the court holds, UDR has a duty under both state and federal credit reporting statutes, which require “maximum accuracy” in credit reports, and this duty is not abrogated or reduced by any First Amendment rights. (See also Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003)
Schroeder v. City Council of the City of Irvine
(2002, 4th District – 97 Cal.App.4th 174, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 330)
Schroeder sued the Irvine City Council over the council’s approval of funds for a voter registration drive (Vote 2000), alleging that the program was a ruse to campaign for a county measure concerning development of an abandoned military airbase. The trial court granted defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, ruling that the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of proving that the expenditures for Vote 2000 were unlawful political expenditures. Schroeder appealed, arguing that if his demonstration of the likelihood of prevailing on his claims was deficient it was because he was denied permission to conduct “specified discovery” that would have produced evidence the expenditures were unlawful. In addition, he argued that the anti-SLAPP statute’s provision for attorney fees for the prevailing party should be construed as permissive or declared unconstitutional. The appellate court concludes that Schroeder had not shown good cause to conduct specified discovery; materials sought by Schroeder were either readily available without the device of discovery or were irrelevant to his claims as a matter of law. The court also upholds the constitutionality of the anti-SLAPP statute’s provision for mandatory attorney fees.
Schwarzburd v. Kensington Police Protection & Community Services Dist.
(2014, 1st District – 225 Cal.App.4th 1345, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 899)
Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2004, 3d District – 115 Cal.App.4th 404, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 242)
Scott sued Metabolife for damages for false and deceitful advertising, alleging that she was injured by a Metabolife product. Metabolife filed a motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the causes of action arose from its advertising, labeling, marketing, and promoting of its product, activities protected by the First Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to strike the complaint for false advertising on the grounds that “applying [the anti-SLAPP statute] to advertising would be stretching the definition of that statute to its outermost boundaries.” The appellate court affirms on the grounds that Metabolife’s advertising of its products for profit does not concern an issue of public interest as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. (Between the trial court’s ruling and the time this matter was heard in oral argument before the appellate court, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 became law. Under section 425.17, commercial advertising is not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.) (See also Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2003); Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2004).)
Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.
(2002, 1st District – 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 108)
Seelig participated in a TV show, “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire.” Before the broadcast Seelig was invited to appear on a radio talk show. She declined. The radio program hosts discussed on the air her refusal to be interviewed. Seelig sued the radio program hosts and the broadcast station owners for damages, alleging defamation and other causes. The defendants filed both a demurrer and a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reverses, concluding that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to the radio broadcast and plaintiff could not prevail on the merits of her claims, since none of the alleged defamatory statements were actionable statements of fact.
Seltzer v. Barnes
(2010, 1st District – 182 Cal.App.4th 953, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 290)
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment
(2020, 2d District – 44 Cal.App.5th 103, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 398)
Shahbazian v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(2017, 2d District – 17 Cal.App.5th 823, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 772)
Sheley v. Harrop
(2017, 3d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 1197, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 606)
Shekhter v. Financial Indemnity Co.
(2001, 2d District – 89 Cal.App.4th 141, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 843)
Financial sued a number of persons, including Shekhter, alleging insurance fraud. The suit was settled, with the condition that all information relating to the suit be kept confidential. Later, in the present case, Allstate Insurance filed a complaint against Shekhter alleging insurance fraud. Shekhter filed a cross-complaint against Allstate but also Financial Indemnity, its lawyers, and others. Shekhter alleged inter alia that the conduct of Financial’s lawyers in the earlier suit against him included unfair business practices and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Motions by different defendants to strike specific causes of action in the cross-complaint were denied by the trial court. The appellate court reversed. Held: a special motion to strike can apply toa single cause of action when other claims remain to be resolved. Additionally, actions by an attorney on behalf of a SLAPP target fall within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute. In this case because the actions alleged to be unfair business practices and violations of the Unruh Act arose in connection with the prosecution of a lawsuit, they were actions in furtherance of the right of petition and thus covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Sheppard v. Lightpost Museum Fund
(2006, 6th District – 146 Cal.App.4th 315, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 821)
Siam v. Kizilbash
(2005, 6th District – 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 368)
Kizilbash accused Siam of abusing his two sons, reporting him to public officials. He also filed a civil harassment petition against Siam. In turn, Siam sued Kizilbash for defamation and malicious prosecution among other causes of action. The trial court denied Kizilbash’s motion to dismiss the entire complaint as a SLAPP. The appellate court upholds the order except for the claim of malicious prosecution, holding that such a claim may not be based on a civil harassment petition. In addition, the court holds that the “litigation privilege” (Civil Code section 47) is overriden by liability for false reporting under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code section 11164 et seq.).
Silk v. Feldman
(2012, 2d District – 208 Cal.App.4th 547)
Simmons v. Allstate Insurance Co.
(2001, 3d District – 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 397)
Simmons filed a cross-complaint for defamation after Allstate sued him for unfair business practices (alleging that Simmons had overtreated patients covered by Allstate). The trial court granted a special motion to strike the cross-complaint. On appeal, Simmons claimed that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him leave to amend the cross-complaint after the court had granted the motion. Held: allowing a SLAPP plaintiff to amend the complaint would undermine the anti-SLAPP statute’s purpose of providing for quick dismissal of meritless lawsuits.
Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
(2020, 2d District – 50 Cal.App.5th 1037, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 903)
Singh v. Lipworth
(2014, 3d District – 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 131)
Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress
(1999, 2d District – 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 83 Cal.Rptr. 677)
The magazine “Mother Jones” published an article about a custody battle, ostensibly to show how rich and powerful men may use the legal system to their advantage over women who may have been abused by them. The subject of the article sued the magazine for defamation. The appellate court upholds the trial court’s dismissal of the suit following a special motion to strike the complaint. The court concluded that the subject of the article was not the private affair of an individual but a public proceeding involving public issues. “[T]he issues of spousal abuse generated in the custody proceedings are of public interest when the person accused of the abuse is a nationally known figure identified with morality campaigns for national leaders ….” The defendant argued that there was a probability he would prevail on his defamation claim because not all of the magazine article was privileged under Civil Code section 47, which confers an absolute privilege on any fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. The court rejected this argument on the grounds that the defendant has made his case if he can establish by the evidence that the gist of the alleged defamatory statements is justified.
Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
(2020, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.5th 109, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 594)
Slaney v. Ranger Insurance Co.
(2004, 2d District – 115 Cal.App.4th 306, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 915)
Slaney prepared an estimate for repair of an aircraft in support of a claim by third parties presented to Ranger Insurance. The company denied the claim on grounds that the claim was fraudulently excessive and sued the insureds and Slaney for bad faith. Slaney’s motion for summary judgment was granted and he was dismissed from the suit. The insureds subsequently received a judgment against the company as well as punitive damages for malicious denial of their claim. Slaney then brought this action for malicious prosecution. The trial court denied the company’s anti-SLAPP motion after concluding that Slaney presented sufficient evidence to establish a probability of prevailing on his complaint. The appellate court affirms. According to the court, the underlying judgment against the company, which included a finding of malice and an award of punitive damages, demonstrated a potential for recovery in the present case.
Slauson Partnership v. Ochoa
(2003, 2d District – 112 Cal.App.4th 1005, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 668)
The owner of a mini-mall filed a complaint for injunctive relief against Ochoa, alleging he had organized ongoing demonstrations against one of the mall’s tenants, a club that produced nude shows. Ochoa filed an anti-SLAPP motion, but a month later the parties stipulated to an injunction that regulated the manner of the demonstrations. Ochoa’s motion was tabled to allow time for the injunction to be tested and reviewed by the court. After a month and a half, the trial court, based on testimony about the conduct of the demonstrations, denied the anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that plaintiffs had succeeded in demonstrating a probability of succeeding on its claim. In a lengthy opinion, the appellate court affirms, ruling that the trial court did not err in considering the same evidence for both the motion to strike and the injunction.
Smith v. Adventist Health System/West
(2010, 5th District – 190 Cal.App.4th 40, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 805)
Sonoma Media Investments, LLC v. Superior Court
(2019, 1st District – 34 Cal.App.5th 24, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 5)
South Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P.
(2011, 3d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 634)
Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery
(2014, 2d District – 232 Cal.App.4th 477, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 436)
Spencer v. Mowat
(2020, 2d District – 46 Cal.App.5th 1024, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 372)
Sprengel v. Zbylut
(2015, 2d District – 241 Cal.App.4th 140, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 407)
(modified 10-29-15)
Squires v. City of Eureka
(2014, 1st District – 231 Cal.App.4th 577, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 10)
Stafford v. Attending Staff Assn. of LAC + USC Medical Center
(2019, 2d District – 41 Cal.App.5th 629, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 369)
StaffPro, Inc. v. Elite Show Services, Inc.
(2006, 4th District – 136 Cal.App.4th 1392, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 682)
StaffPro filed a malicious prosecution suit against Elite which responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court granted Elite’s motion, ruling that StaffPro failed to carry its burden of establishing a probability that it would prevail because it had not shown favorable termination or probable cause. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a severability analysis is improper in determining whether a malicious prosecution plaintiff has demonstrated favorable termination of an underlying lawsuit. Thus, since the first cause of action in the underlying suit had not terminated in favor of StaffPro, it could not demonstrate favorable termination, and therefore could not prevail in its malicious prosecution suit.
Starview Property, LLC v. Lee
(2019, 2d District – 41 Cal.App.5th 203, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 58)
State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Majorino
(2002, 2d District – 99 Cal.App.4th 974, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 719)
Majorino and O’Brien sued several people after they were allegedly assaulted during a party at a private home. The home’s owners were among the named defendants; the owners tendered their defense to State Farm under their homeowner policy. State Farm then filed an action for declaratory relief, seeking a judicial determination of its duty to indemnify the homeowners. In turn, Majorino and O’Brien filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that State Farm’s action was designed to chill their right to petition for legal redress. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that Majorino and O’Brien had failed to demonstrate that State Farm’s action for declaratory relief qualified as a SLAPP under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. “[T]he act which underlies and forms the basis for State Farm’s declaratory relief action is not the personal injury lawsuit filed by appellants, but the [homeowners’] tender of the defense of that lawsuit under a policy that contains an arguably applicable exclusionary clause.”
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lee
(2011, 3d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 34, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 183)
Steadman v. Osborne
(2009, 4th District – 178 Cal.App.4th 950, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 724)
Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs
(2012, 2d District – 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 519)
Stenehjem v. Sareen
(2014, 6th District – 226 Cal.App.4th 1405, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 173)
Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC
(2010, 1st District – 181 Cal.App.4th 664, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 98)
Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 3 Cal.App.5th 118, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 411)
Sugarman v. Benett
(2021, 2d District – 73 Cal.App.5th 165, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 174)

Sugarman v. Brown
(2021, 2d District – 73 Cal.App.5th 152, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 165)

Summerfiled v. Randolph
(2011, 2d District – 201 Cal.App.4th 127)
Sunset Millennium Associates, LLC v. Le Songe, LLC
(2006, 2d District – 138 Cal.App.4th 256, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 273)
Sunset Millennium Associates v. LHO Grafton Hotel
(2006, 2d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 300, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 828)
Supershuttle International, Inc. v. Labor & Workforce Development Agency
(2019, 2d District – 40 Cal.App.5th 1058, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 666)
Swanson v. County of Riverside
(2019, 4th District – 36 Cal.App.5th 361, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 476)
Sycamore Ridge Apartments LLC v. Naumann
(2007, 4th District – 157 Cal.App.4th 1385, 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 561)
Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc.
(2004, 2d District – 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 882)
In response to Pueblo’s lawsuit against it, Sylmar filed a cross-complaint alleging fraud among other actions. Pueblo filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint for fraud. Before the hearing on the motion, Sylmar filed an amended cross-complaint. The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion. On appeal Sylmar argued that its amended cross-complaint made the anti-SLAPP motion moot. The appellate court holds that a plaintiff may not avoid a hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion by filing an amended pleading, and thus, if the motion is granted, may not avoid the mandatory award of costs and attorney fees to the SLAPP target.
Symmonds v. Mahoney
(2019, 2d District – 31 Cal.App.5th 1096, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 445)

 

T
Taheri Law Group v. Evans
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 847)

Takhar v. People ex rel. Feather River Air Quality Management Dist.
(2018, 3d District – 27 Cal.App.5th 15, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 759)

Talega Maintenance Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp.
(2014, 4th District – 225 Cal.App.4th 722, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 453)

Tendler v. www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com
(2008, 6th District – 164 Cal.App.4th 802, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 407)

Appellant Tendler obtained a pre-lawsuit discovery order in an Ohio state court directed to Google, from whom he sought to learn the identities of the anonymous individuals who had posted statements about him on the Internet that he believed were defamatory. Tendler then filed a request for subpoenas in Santa Clara County Superior Court premised on the Ohio discovery order. The anonymous individuals filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The court held that a request for a subpoena is not a “cause of action,” and therefore cannot be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. In his concurrence, Justice McAdams urged the Legislature to consider whether the anti-SLAPP law should be expanded to include such third-party subpoena requests. As of Jan. 1, 2009, amendments to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 1987.2 provide that in a successful motion to quash such a subpoena, the court shall award the amount of the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in making the motion.

Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 264)

Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of University of California
(2019, 1st District – 40 Cal.App.5th 659, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 394)

Terry v. Davis Community Church
(2005, 3d District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1534, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 145)

Plaintiffs, employees of Davis Community Church, sued the church and others for defamation and emotional distress, alleging that church officials falsely accused them of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor in the course of their church work. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that private communications concerning issues of public interest are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (see Averill v. Superior Court) and plaintiffs had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims.

Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
(2012, 1st District –  207 Cal.App.4th 141, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 17)

Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin
(2020, 4th District – 49 Cal.App.5th 366, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 814)

Traditional Cat Association, Inc. v. Gilbreath
(2004, 4th District – 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 353)

This case arose because of a split in the ranks of organized cat breeders. The founder of The Traditional Cat Association sued defendants for allegedly defamatory statements published on their website. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, concluding that plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their complaint. The court’s decision was based on its ruling that defendants’ statute of limitations defense in their anti-SLAPP motion was not a proper issue for determination under the terms of the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court finds this conclusion erroneous. Moreover, it rejects plaintiffs’ argument that a cause of action for defamation arising from statements posted on a website arises continuously while the website is operating, holding that the single publication rule in the law of defamation applies to statements published on websites. Because defendants posted the alleged defamatory statements more than a year before plaintiffs filed their complaint, the action for defamation is barred by the statute of limitations. This is the first California court to adopt the single-publication rule for web publishing.

Thomas v. Quintero
(2005, 1st District – 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 619)

Quintero was part of organized public protests against Thomas, his landlord. After Quintero and others appeared at Thomas’s church, Thomas took action against Quintero by filing a petition seeking injunctive relief against civil harassment (Civil Code section 527.6). Quintero responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reverses. Held: A Section 527.6 petition to enjoin civil harassment is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. However, an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), issued pending a hearing on the petition for injunctive relief, is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. The request for a TRO does not qualify as a “cause of action” under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill
(2009, 6th District – 177 Cal.App.4th 1049, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 661)

Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard
(2014, 4th District – 222 Cal.App.4th 1447, 166 CAl.Rptr.3d 729)

Towner v. County of Ventura
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 761, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 891)

Trapp v. Naiman
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 113, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 462)

Trilogy at Glen Ivy Maintenance Assn. v. Shea Homes, Inc.
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 361, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 8)

Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company
(2020, 4th District – 50 Cal.App.5th 920, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 892)

Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc.
(2021, 2d District – 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 831)

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 211, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 579)

Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District
(2003, 4th District – 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 57)

Plaintiff sued the Port for a variety of business-related causes of action, alleging that the Port had interfered with an exclusive negotiating agreement between plaintiff and others concerning development of bayfront property. The Port filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the lawsuit arose from the Port’s review of plans for the development. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal plaintiff argued that no issue concerning the development project was before the Port in any official process when the Port commented on the project. Even if that were true, the appellate court says, the project was nevertheless a matter of public interest and therefore the Port’s comments were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Because the court also finds that plaintiff did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, it affirms the grant of the motion.

Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court
(2017, 1st District – 12 Cal.App.5th 1233, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 382)

Tukes v. Richard
(2022, 2d District – 81 Cal.App.5th 1, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)

Turnbull v. Lucerne Valley Unified School District
(2018, 4th District – 24 Cal.App.5th 522, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 488)

Turner v. Vista Pointe Ridge HOA
(2009, 4th District – 180 Cal.App.4th 676, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 750)

Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera
(2006, 1st District – 136 Cal.App.4th 164, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 21)

Plaintiff Tutor-Saliba Corporation sued the City Attorney of San Francisco for allegedly defamatory statements he made in a speech before the San Francisco Chinese-American Democratic Club regarding a lawsuit he had filed against plaintiff. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the alleged defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47(a) (“official duty privilege”), as well as under Government Code sections 821.6 and 820.2 (“prosecutorial immunity” and “discretionary immunity,” respectively). The appellate court affirmed.

Tuszynzka v. Cunningham
(2011, 4th District – 199 Cal.App.4th 257, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 63)

 

U-V

Ulkarim v. Westfield LLC
(2014, 2d District – 227 Cal.App.4th 1266, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 17)
USA Waste of California, Inc. v. City of Irwindale
(2010, 2d District – 184 Cal.App.4th 53, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 466)
United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
(2005, 6th District – 171 Cal.App.4th 1617, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 619)
U.S. Western Falun Dafa Association v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce
(2008, 1st District – 163 Cal.App.4th 590, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 710)
Urick v. Urick
(2017, 2d District – 15 Cal.App.5th 1182 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 125)
ValueRock TN Properties, LLC v. PK II Larwin Square SC LP
(2019, 4th District – 36 Cal.App.5th 1037, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 179)
Vargas v. City of Salinas (Salinas II)
(2011, 6th District – 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 244)
Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 776, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 246)
Vergos v. McNeal
(2007, 3d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1387, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 647)
Vivian v. Labrucherie
(2013, 1st District – 214 Cal.App.4th 267, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)
Visher v. City of Malibu
(2005, 2d District – 126 Cal.App.4th 363, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 816)
City refused to process plaintiffs’ application for a “coastal development permit” because the city’s right to do so was the subject of a lawsuit by the city against the California Coastal Commission. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate to require the city to process their application. The city moved to dismiss the petition as a SLAPP. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion and refused to dismiss the petition. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that plaintiffs’ petition arose from the city’s refusal to process an application, not from the city’s lawsuit against the Coastal Commission. Although the city could not claim the protection of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, it was not left defenseless in preserving its case against the Coastal Commission.
Vogel v. Felice
(2005, 6th District – 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 350)
Two candidates for public office sought damages for libel and other torts based on statements posted on a public website. Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied on the grounds that the allegedly libelous statements could be shown to have exceeded privileges afforded under state law and the U.S. Constitution. The appellate court reverses. According to the court, plaintiffs’ claims fell squarely within the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute, requiring plaintiffs to show they could prevail on the merits, and plaintiffs failed to carry this burden.

 

W

Walker v. Kiousis
(2001, 4th District – 93 Cal.App.4th 1432, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 69)
Walker, a California Highway Patrolman, arrested Kiousis for suspected drunk driving. After pleading guilty, Kiousis filed a citizen complaint against Walker with the CHP, alleging conduct inappropriate for an officer. The CHP determined the complaint was without merit, and Walker then sued Kiousis for defamation. Civil Code section 47 generally creates an absolute privilege for statements made in the course of an official proceeding. However, section 47.5 creates an exception, allowing a peace officer to bring a defamation action against an individual who knowingly and maliciously files a false complaint about the office. Kiousis moved to dismiss Walker’s suit, arguing that Civil Code section 47.5 was unconstitutional and therefore his complaint to the CHP was protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the motion to strike, but on the grounds that Walker had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his lawsuit, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute, because he had not shown he sustained any actual damage. The appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion to strike, but on the grounds that section 47.5 is unconstitutional because it impermissably regulates speech based on the content of the speech.
Wallace v. McCubbin
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 744, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 909)
Wang v. Hartunian
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 744, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 909)
In a dispute over use of a vacant lot owned by Wang, Hartunian obtained a permanent restraining order against Wang. Hartunian summoned the police on several occasions to deal with alleged violations of the order, and on one occasion effected a citizen’s arrest of Wang. Wang sued Hartunian alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and abuse of process among other causes of action. Hartunian’s special motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP was granted by the trial court, which concluded that Wang was not likely to prevail on his claims. The appellate court reverses, holding that a citizen’s arrest is not a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Wang v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
(2007, 4th District -153 Cal.App.4th 790, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 575)
Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi
(2006, 3d District – 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 633)
Plaintiffs sued defendants for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and the court of appeal affirmed. On remand, the trial court awarded attorney fees for the work on appeal as well as for defendants’ challenge to plaintiffs’ undertaking to stay enforcement of the judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the award of attorney fees for the undertaking. The appellate court affirmed, finding that not permitting attorney fees for such efforts would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent to encourage continued participation in free speech and petition activities.
Weeden v. Hoffman
(2021, 4th District – 70 Cal.App.5th 269, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 262)
Weinberg v. Feisel
(2003, 3d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 385)
Weinberg sued Feisel for defamation, alleging that Feisel told others that Weinberg had stolen a valuable collector’s item. Feisel moved to strike the complaint as a SLAPP, contending that his statements accused plaintiff of criminal activity and that criminal activity is always a matter of public interest. The trial court denied the motion, noting that Feisel never reported his suspicions to law enforcement officials and offered no evidence that he intended to file civil charges against plaintiff. The appellate court affirms. The court concludes that nothing in the record supports even an arguable suggestion that Feisel’s statements constituted speech protected by the First Amendment and therefore plaintiff’s causes of action were not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute. “Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his dispute with plaintiff was anything other than a private dispute….”
West v. Arent Fox LLP
(2015, 2d District – 237 Cal.App.4th 1065, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 729)
(modified 6/26/15)
White v. Lieberman
(2002, 2d District – 103 Cal.App.4th 210, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 608)
Attorney Lieberman represented homeowners in an action against White for slander of title, and the trial court found White liable. An appellate court reversed on the grounds the action was not supported by substantial evidence. Subsequently White sued Lieberman for malicious prosecution of the slander action. The trial court sustained Lieberman’s demurrer, but refused to consider Lieberman’s anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that it was moot in view of the successful demurrer. The appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in determining that Lieberman’s motion was moot. Because a malicious prosecution action is within the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute, and there is no possibility White can prevail, the only matter left for the trial court’s consideration is the amount of attorney fees.  (See Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, where the same issue is decided similarly.)
Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 352, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 321)
Widders v. Furchtenicht
(2008, 2d District – 167 Cal.App.4th 769, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 428)
Wilbanks v. Wolk
(2004, 1st District -121 Cal.App.4th 883, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 497)
Brokerage firm sued Wolk, alleging Wolk had made defamatory statements about its business integrity on her website, where Wolk publishes information for the general public about a special type of life insurance policy brokered by plaintiffs. Wolk moved to strike the claim for defamation as a SLAPP; the trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses the ruling. The court agrees that the anti-SLAPP statute applies in this case but concludes that plaintiffs showed the requisite probability of prevailing on their claim for defamation.
Wilcox v. Superior Court
(1994, 2d District – 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446)
Several court reporters brought suit against an alliance of court reporters, claiming unfair business practice and interference with plaintiffs’ existing contracts and prospective economic advantages. Defendants cross-complained for damages arising from a flyer circulated by the plaintiffs to raise money for litigation costs. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the cross-complaint is reversed.
Wilkerson v. Sullivan
(2002, 4th District – 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 275)
Plaintiffs appealed an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion but dismissed the appeal before it was decided. Defendant moved for an award of attorney fees in connection with the appeal but the court denied recovery of fees. Defendant appealed the denial. The court of appeal reverses, holding that defendants in a SLAPP are entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred in connection with defending the anti-SLAPP motion on appeal even when plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Once the trial court has granted an anti-SLAPP motion, the judicial decision that the action was a SLAPP remains intact unless reversed by the court of appeal and thus the defendant remains the “prevailing party” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 6 Cal.App.5th 822, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 724)
(Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded)
Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC
(2018, 1st District – 26 Cal.App.5th 239, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 25)Wisner v. Dignity Health
(2022, No. C094051)
Witte v. Kaufman
(2006, 3d District – 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 790)
Wittenberg v. Bornstein
(2020, 1st District – 50 Cal.App.5th 303, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 677)
Wong v. Jing
(2010, 6th District – 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747)
The trial court denied an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a dentist’s claims of libel per se and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, filed against two parents and Yelp!, arising from a negative review on Yelp! regarding the dentist’s treatment of the parents’ child.  The Court of Appeal held that six of the seven claims should have been dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law.
Wong v. Wong
(2019, 1st District – 43 Cal.App.5th 358, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 624)
Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
(2021, 2nd District – 68 Cal.App.5th 624, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 507)
Workman v. Colichman
(2019, 2d District – 33 Cal.App.5th 1039, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 636)
World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc.
(2009, 2d District – 172 Cal.App.4th 1561, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 227)

 

X-Y-Z

Xu v. Huang
(2021, 2nd District – 73 Cal.App.5th 802, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 558)
Yang v. Tenet Healthcare Inc.
(2020, 4th District – 48 Cal.App.5th 939, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 429)
Yeager v. Holt
(2018, 3d District – 23 Cal.App.5th 450, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 693)
Yee v. Cheung
(2013, 4th District – 220 Cal.App.4th 184, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 851)
York v. Strong
(2015, 4th District – 234 Cal.App.4th 1471, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 845)
Young v. Midland
(2022, Nos. A161843, A162784)
Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist.
(2012, 4th District – 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 119)
Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia
(2002, 1st District – 103 Cal.App.4th 298, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516)
Yu filed a class action on behalf of California residents against two banks for abuse of process and unfair business practice after the banks filed debt-collection actions in Virginia, their home state. The trial court sustained the banks’ demurrer to a third amended complaint but denied the banks’ concurrent anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds the latter was moot in light of the successful demurrer. The banks appealed. Both parties appealed. On appeal Yu argued that, because the anti-SLAPP motion was filed a year after the original complaint, it was untimely under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court holds that an amended complaint is a “complaint” under the anti-SLAPP statute (which requires that a special motion to strike be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint”), and, since the motion in this case was filed within 60 days of service of the third amended complaint, it was timely. In addition, the anti-SLAPP motion is no longer moot, the court concludes, in light of the court’s reversal of the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer. Nevertheless, the court affirms the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion but on the grounds that Yu’s claims “have sufficient potential merit to withstand Banks’ anti-SLAPP motion.” The case is interesting because the filing of a collection action in a distant state in effect deprives customers of the opportunity to defend themselves. Nevertheless, the court filing is a protected First Amendment activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, so only a determination that there is a likelihood the plaintiffs might prevail preserves the complaint for abuse of process.
Zhang v. Chu
(2020, 2d District – 46 Cal.App.5th 46, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 536)
Zhang v. Jenevein
(2019, 2d District – 31 Cal.App.5th 585, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 800)
Zhao v. Wong
(1996, 1st District – 48 Cal.App.4th 1114, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 909)
Note:  This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
Zhao sued Wong for slander, alleging that Wong had falsely accused her of murdering his brother in a newspaper article about a coroner’s investigation into the brother’s mysterious death and a contest in probate court over the brother’s will. The trial court granted a special motion to strike the complaint, saying that “if you make a comment about a judicial proceeding, that’s an act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition [or] free speech.” The appellate court reverses, concluding that the brother’s death, although newsworthy, did not rise to the level of a public issue protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Zucchet v. Galardi
(2014, 4th District – 229 Cal.App.4th 1466, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 363)****************************************

Superior Court, Appellate Division – Published Opinions:

O’Neil-Rosales v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.
(2017, App.Div.Super.Ct – LA – 11 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 723)

source

 

Federal SLAPP Cases Decided by U.S. District Courts in California

Opinions in the U.S. District Courts concerning the California Anti-SLAPP Statute (CCP § 425.16):

 

[note:  the list below also includes some non-California cases involving CCP § 425.16]

Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.
United States District Court, N.D. California. August 02, 2019 398 F.Supp.3d 578

Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.
525 F.Supp.3d 1088 – ND Cal 2021

Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc.
270 F.Supp.3d 343 – D Mass. 2017

Arenas v. Shed Media US Inc.
881 F.Supp.2d 1181 – CD Cal. 2011

Blatt v. Pambakian
432 F.Supp.3d 1141 – CD Cal. 2020

Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
722 F.Supp.2d 1148 – CD Cal. 2010

Browne v. McCain
611 F.Supp.2d 1062 – CD Cal. 2009

Bulletin Displays, LLC v. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
448 F.Supp.2d 1172 – CD Cal. 2006

Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
229 F.Supp.2d 962 – CD Cal. 2007

Choose Energy, Inc. v. American Petroleum Institute
87 F.Supp.3d 1218 – ND Cal. 2015

Clifford v. Trump
339 F.Supp.3d 915 – CD Cal. 2018

Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo
329 F.Supp.3d 1000 – ND Cal. 2018

Competitive Technologies. v. Fujitsu Ltd.
286 F.Supp.2d 1118 – ND Cal. 2003

This is a very complex case of patent infringement and numerous related causes of action, further complicated by issues of choice of law since the case was transferred from a district court in Illinois. Competitive Technologies filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike certain counterclaims asserted by Fujitsu. The court concludes that California law does not apply to Fujitsu’s counterclaims.

Condit v. National Enquirer, Inc.
248 F.Supp.2d 945 – ED Cal. 2002

The wife of U.S. Congressman Gary Condit sued the National Enquirer for libel based on statements published in two issues of the weekly publication. Defendant’s motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is denied on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statements did not concern a public issue and the plaintiff had demonstrated in her complaint that she could succeed on the merits.

Cox v. Mariposa County
445 F.Supp.3d 804 – ED Cal. 2020

Davis v. Hollins Law
942 F.Supp.2d 1004 – ED Cal. 2013

Dean v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
562 F.Supp.3d 928 – CD Cal. 2022

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Pandora Marketing, LLC
500 F.Supp.3d 1104 2020 WL – CD Cal. 2020

Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Pandora Marketing, LLC
541 F.Supp.3d 1020 – CD Cal. 2021

Dickman v. Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP
982 F.Supp.2d 1157 – SD Cal. 2013

Drawsand v. F.F. Properties, L.L.P.
866 F.Supp.2d 1110 – ND Cal. 2011

E.D.C. Technologies, Inc. v. Seidel
225 F.Supp.3d 1058 – ND Cal. 12-6-2016

eCash Technologies v. Guagliardo
127 F.Supp.2d 1069 – CD Cal 2000

After defendant registered the domain name “ecash.com”, plaintiff filed federal claims of cyberpiracy, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of plaintiff’s registration of the “eCash” mark and alleging unfair or unlawful business practices by plaintiff under state law. The court granted plaintiff’s special motion to strike defendant’s state law counterclaims pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute inasmuch as the counterclaims were based on a letter from plaintiff’s counsel that was a communication related to pending litigation and therefore privileged under Civil Code section 47(b).

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty Ltd.
290 F.Supp.3d 923 – ND Cal. 2017

Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria v. Ceiba Legal, LLP
230 F.Supp.3d 1146 – ND Cal. 2-2-2017

Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir
544 F.Supp.2d 1044 – ED Cal. 2006

Flores v. Emerich & Fike
416 F.Supp.2d 885 – ED Cal. 2006

Plaintiff fruit growers filed a complaint alleging various forms of alter ego liability, fraudulent transfers, and the existence of a racketeering enterprise against the corporate defendants and the law firm and individual attorneys who represented them (Fike defendants). The Fike defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike several of the claims. The district court found that the section Civil Code 425.17 exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because it was strictly a private dispute, and the alleged actions of the Fike defendants did not involve marketing their services nor were representations made to potential consumers or to gain a competitive advantage. The court granted the motion to strike each cause of action because plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing on any of their claim.

Four Navy Seals & Jane Doe v. Associated Press
413 F.Supp.2d 1136 – SD Cal. 2005

Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Inc.
827 F.Supp.2d 1065 – ND Cal. 2011

Friedman v. DirecTV
262 F.Supp.3d 1000 – CD Cal. 2015

Gallagher v. Philipps
563 F.Supp.3d 1048 – SD Cal. 2021

Gamble v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
348 F.Supp.3d 1003 – ND Cal. 2018

Global Telemedia International, Inc. v. Doe 1
132 F.Supp.2d 1261 – CD Cal. 2001

Several individuals, using pseudonyms, posted remarks about a publicly traded telecommunications company in an Internet chat room. The company brought suit in state court, alleging trade libel, libel per se, interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage. Defendants removed the case to federal court. The court granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, after finding that the company had not satisfied its burden of showing a probability of success on its claims for trade libel and defamation. The court concluded that, given the context of publication and the “colorful and figurative language” of the postings, defendants’ statements about the company could not reasonably be understood to be factual.

Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc. Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc.
63 F.Supp.2d 1127 – ND Cal 1999

Globetrotter made statements to the market concerning the products of Elan and Rainbow and subsequently sued the two companies. The defendant companies brought a number of state-law counterclaims for damages due to Globetrotter’s statements. Globetrotter filed a special motion to strike the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP statute. The motion was denied on the grounds that statements by one company regarding the conduct of a competitor do not come within the statute’s protection of Petition Clause conduct.

Gottesman v. Santana
263 F.Supp.3d 1034 – SD Cal. 2017

Hanover Insurance Company v. Fremont Bank
68 F.Supp.3d 1085 – ND Cal. 2014

Harkonen v. Fleming
880 F.Supp.2d 1071 – ND Cal. 2012

Hart v. Larson
232 F.Supp.3d 1128 – SD Cal. 2017

Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow
445 F.Supp.3d 1042 – SD Cal. 2020 445 F.Supp.3d 1042

Hutton v. Law Offices of Collins & Lamore
668 F.Supp.2d 1251 – SD Cal. 2009

In re Bohrer
United States Bankruptcy Court, 628 B.R. 676 – SD Cal. 2021

In re Landes
United States Bankruptcy Court, 627 B.R. 144 _ ED Cal. 2021

In re Outlaw Laboratories, LP Litigation
352 F.Supp.3d 992 – SD Cal. 2018

Intel Corporation v. Seven Networks, LLC
562 F.Supp.3d 454 2021 – ND Cal. 2021

Johnson v. Altamirano
418 F.Supp.3d 530 – SD Cal. 2019

Kearney v. Foley & Lardner
553 F.Supp.2d 1178 – SD Cal. 2008

Lauter v. Anoufrieva
642 F.Supp.2d 1060 – CD Cal. 2009

Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
26 F.Supp.3d 1002 – SD Cal. 2014

Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.
94 F.Supp.3d 1128 – CD Cal. 2015

Mandel v. Hafermann
503 F.Supp.3d 946 – ND Cal 2020

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. San Diego County (“Manufactured II”)
606 F.Supp.2d 1266 – SD Cal. 2009

MCSI, Inc. v. Woods
290 F.Supp.2d 1030 – ND Cal. 2003

Plaintiff sued defendants for multiple causes, including defamation, based on “negative statements” about the company on an Internet forum for discussion of large, publicly traded corporations. Defendant Woods, who had posted the remarks, filed a special motion to strike the complaint against him under the the anti-SLAPP statute. The court denies the motion on the grounds that the remarks did not concern a public issue and therefore are not protected by the statute.

Mello v. Great Seneca Financial Corp.
526 F.Supp.2d 1024 – CD Cal. 2008

Metabolife International, Inc. v. Susan Wornick (“Wornick I”)
72 F.Supp.2d 1160 – SD Cal. 1999

Metabolife claimed that defendants, in statements on a television broadcast, committed defamation, slander, trade libel, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The trial court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. It concludes that defendants’ statements are protected by the First Amendment, either because they are true or represent opinion, and thus are covered by the anti-SLAPP statute. Because the court refuses to admit evidence proferred by Metabolife as expert evidence, Metabolife cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. (See the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in this case.)

Metabolife International, Inc. v. Susan Wornick (“Wornick II”)
213 F.Supp.2d 1220 – SD Cal. 2002

Order granting attorney fees to defendant who prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion.

National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
533 F.Supp.3d 802 – ND Cal. 2021

New.net, Inc. v. Lavasoft
356 F.Supp.2d 1090 – CD Cal. 2004

Parties are Internet software publishers. New.net writes software that is downloaded from the Internet to an individual’s computer without the knowledge or request of the computer owner. Lavasoft provides software that detects such programs and allows the computer owner to remove them. Plaintiff lost its bid for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Lavasoft from including New.net software in its list of removable programs. The court’s denial was based in part on the grounds that Lavasoft, through its software, was engaged in expression protected under the First Amendment. Defendant then filed an anti-SLAPP motion against all state-law claims, which the court granted.

Nicosia v. DeRooy
72 F.Supp.2d 1093 – ND Cal. 1999

Nicosia sued DeRooy for defamation in connection with statements published about Nicosia on DeRooy’s website. Nocosia was agent for the writer Jack Kerouac’s daughter Jan. The court granted a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP law, reasoning that the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure subject to the actual malice standard, had failed to plead actual malice with sufficient specificity, and therefore had failed to establish a probability that he would prevail in the case as required by the anti-SLAPP statute.

O’Handley v. Padilla
— F.Supp.3d —- N.D. California 2022

Penrose Hill, Limited v. Mabray
479 F.Supp.3d 840 – ND Cal. 2020

Physician’s Surrogacy, Inc. v. German
311 F.Supp.3d 1190 – SD Cal. 2018

Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Associates
946 F. Supp. 2d 957 – ND Cal. 2013

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress
214 F.Supp.3d 808 – ND Cal. 2016

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress
402 F.Supp.3d 615 – ND Cal. 2019

PLS.com, LLC v. National Association of Realtors
516 F.Supp.3d 1047 – CD Cal. 2021

Plumleigh v. City of Santa Ana
754 F.Supp.2d 1201 – CD Cal. 2010

Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.
872 F.Supp.2d 924 – ND Cal. 2012

Price v. Stossel
590 F.Supp.2d 1262 – CD Cal. 2008

Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos
359 F.Supp.3d 801- ND Cal. 2019

Ray Charles Foundation v. Robinson
919 F.Supp.2d 1054 – CD Cal. 2013
(Reversed by Ninth Circuit on non-anti-SLAPP issues; see 765 F.3d 1109, 1114)

Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International
— F.Supp.3d —- – ND Cal. 10-16-2017

Robinson v. Alameda County
875 F.Supp.2d 1029 – ND Cal. 2012

Rogers v. Home Shopping Network
57 F.Supp.2d 973 – CD Cal. 1999

Rogers sued the National Enquirer, alleging libelous statements about her in a published article. The newspaper filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court determined that the anti-SLAPP statute’s provision for staying discovery was inconsistent with Federal Rule of Procedure 56, and therefore postponed ruling on the motion until after the plaintiff had an opportunity to discover the identity of the purported confidential source of the published statements. “[I]f a defendant desires to make a special motion to strike based on the plaintiff’s lack of evidence, the defendant may not do so until discovery has been developed sufficiently to permit summary judgment under Rule 56. Once the nonmoving party has been given the opportunity to conduct discovery, the special motion can be heard….”

Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark
465 F.Supp.2d 1031 – SD Cal. 2009

Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino
875 F.Supp.2d 975 – ND Cal. 2012

Shack v. NBC Universal Media, LLC
467 F.Supp.3d 885 – CD Cal. 2020

Sharper Image Corporation v. Target Corp.
425 F.Supp.2d 1056 – ND Cal. 2006

Defendants brought counterclaims for tortious interference with economic advantage and unfair competition. Plaintiff filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants’ counterclaims were based on emails sent by plaintiff to retailers and media representatives who advertised the product in question, advising them of the lawsuit and asking them not to carry or advertise the product. The district court concluded that because the intended audience of the emails was actual or potential buyers or customers, or persons likely to repeat the statement to or otherwise influence an actual or potential buyer or customer, the counterclaims were exempt from the anti-SLAPP law, pursuant to Civil Code Section 425.17(c).

Shropshire v. Fred Rappoport Co.
294 F.Supp.2d 1085 – ND Cal. 2003

Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement and other causes of action, including interference with prospective economic advantage, after it terminated defendants’ rights to use a song in a video production. Defendants filed a special (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the complaints for interference with prospective economic advantage on the grounds that the complaints were based on statements made by defendant in anticipation of litigation with plaintiffs and therefore protected by California’s “litigation privilege” statute. The court concludes that, before it can decide on the motion, it must resolve the factual question whether defendant’s allegedly tortious statements were made “with a good faith belief in a legally viable claim and in serious contemplation of litigation” and therefore plaintiff must be permitted to conduct discovery on this point. Accordingly, the court does not apply the California anti-SLAPP statute’s stay on discovery.

Sikhs for Justice “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
144 F.Supp.3d 1088 – ND Cal. 2015

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.
723 F.Supp.2d 1205 – ND Cal. 2010

Sonoma Foods, Inc. v. Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC
634 F.Supp.2d 1009 – ND Cal. 2007

Stossel V. Meta
No. 21-cv-07385-VKD – ND California 2022

Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles
530 F.Supp.2d 1084 – CD Cal. 2008

Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
313 F.Supp.3d 1056 – ND Cal. 2018

Thomas v. Los Angeles Times Communications
189 F.Supp.2d 1005 – CD Cal. 2002

Thomas was the subject of a biography on his experiences during World War II. Thomas claimed to be a member of the French resistance and, as an agent of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps, to have uncovered evidence concerning Nazi concentration camp practices. After publication of the biography, an article critical of Thomas’s claims appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Thomas sued for damages, alleging defamation by implication. Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The district court grants the motion on the grounds that it is unlikely Thomas would prevail on the merits of his claim. The court analyzes in detail the Los Angeles Times article to reach the conclusion that it does not provide sufficient evidence of defamation by implication.

Tisdale v. City of Los Angeles
617 F.Supp.2d 1003 – CD Cal. 2009

Tobinick v. Novella
108 F.Supp.3d 1299 – SD Fla 2015

Troy Group, Inc. v. Tilson
364 F.Supp.2d 1149 – CD Cal. 2002

The Troy Group sued Tilson for defamation based on a statement Tilson made to his attorney in a lawsuit against Troy. Tilson filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The parties disputed whether Tilson’s statement was “in connection with an issue of public interest” as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. The court grants Tilson’s motion on the grounds that the public issue requirement was satisfied and Troy had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of its claim.

Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors
682 F.Supp.2d 1003 – ND Cal. 2010

TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc.
626 F.Supp.2d 1120 – C.D. Cal. 2009

UCP International Company Limited v. Balsam Brands Inc.
420 F.Supp.3d 966 – ND Cal. 2019

United States ex rel. Solis v. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
445 F.Supp.3d 786 – ED Cal. 2020

United Tactical Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.
143 F.Supp.3d 982 – ND Cal. 2015

Weiland Sliding Doors & Windows, Inc. v. Panda Windows & Doors, LLC
814 F.Supp.2d 1033 – SD Cal. 2011

Welker v. Law Office of Daniel J. Horwitz
626 F.Supp.2d 1068 – S.D. Cal. 2009

source

 

 

source

U.S. District Courts in California
Selected cases (alphabetical by case name)

Federal SLAPP Cases Decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Batzel v. Smith
9th Circuit, 2003
333 F.3d 1018

 

Smith, a contractor hired by Batzel at her home, saw numerous “older European” paintings on Batzel’s walls and thought he overheard her say she was the granddaughter of one of Hitler’s deputies. He sent an e-mail to an agency involved in tracking down artwork stolen by the Nazis, and the agency posted the e-mail on its website. Batzel sued Smith and the director of the agency, Ton Cremers, for defamation. Cremers filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff was not likely to prevail on her complaint, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute, because he was exempt from liability for reposting Smith’s e-mail on the Internet under 47 U.S.C. 230 — a part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that sets limitations on liability under state law for postings on the Internet. The motion was denied by the district court on the grounds that section 230 did not apply to Cremers’ in this case. The 9th Circuit panel holds, as a threshold matter, that denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is an immediately appealable “final decision” in federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1291. “Because California law recognizes the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute as a substantive immunity from suit, this court … will do so as well.” (Cf. United States, ex rel. Newsham et al. v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. below.) The court disagrees with the district court’s interpretation of section 230, vacates the district court’s denial of the special motion to strike, and remands for further hearings on questions of fact in light of its interpretation of section 230.

Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer
9th Circuit, 2005
403 F.3d 672

After Kremer became dissatisfied with hair restoration provided by Bosley, he started a website to criticize the service. Because the website address was “BosleyMedical.com,” Bosley sued Kremer for trademark infringement and cybersquatting under the federal Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Kremer filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Bosley’s state-law trademark claims. The district court granted the motion but the appellate court reverses. “An infringement lawsuit by a trademark owner over a defendant’s unauthorized use of the mark as his domain name does not necessarily impair the defendant’s free speech rights.” The court concludes that while a summary judgment motion might have been appropriate, an anti-SLAPP motion was not.

Breazeale v. Victim Services, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2017
878 F.3d 759

CoreCivic v. Candide Group
9th Circuit, 2022
46 F.4th 1136

Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2015
775 F.3d 1172

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp.
9th Circuit, 2013
706 F.3d 1009

Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2013
730 F.3d 946

EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2021
1 F.4th 1164

Estate of Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Interscope Records, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2008
515 F.3d 1019

Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir
9th Circuit, 2011
631 F.3d 1299

Falck Northern California Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC
9th Circuit, 2022
25 F.4th 763

Graham-Sult v. Clainos
9th Circuit, 2013
738 F.3d 1131

Graham-Sult v. Clainos
9th Circuit, 2014
756 F.3d 724

Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. CNN, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2014
742 F.3d 414

Greensprings Baptist Christian Fellowship Trust v. Cilley
9th Circuit, 2010
629 F.3d 1064

Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow
9th Circuit, 2021
8 F.4th 1148

Hilton v. Hallmark Cards
9th Circuit, 2010
599 F.3d. 894

Hyan v. Hummer
9th Circuit, 2016
825 F.3d 1043

Jordan-Benel v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2017
859 F.3d 1184

Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP
9th Circuit, 2009
590 F.3d 638

Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. (In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig.)
9th Circuit, 2013
724 F.3d 1268

Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
9th Circuit, 2013
715 F.3d 254
736 F.3d 1180

Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2017
853 F.3d 1004

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. County of San Diego
9th Circuit, 2011
655 F.3d 1171

Manufactured Home Communities., Inc. v. County of San Diego
9th Circuit, 2008
544 F.3d 959

Manzari v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.
9th Circuit, 2016
830 F.3d 881

Metabolife International, Inc. v. Wornick
9th Circuit, 2001
264 F.3d 832

In this lengthy and complex opinion (including a partial dissent) the court reverses in part and affirms in part the judgment of the district court (see district court decision). The district court had ruled that certain expert testimony on behalf of Metabolife could not be admitted; as a result, Metabolife was unable to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims for defamation and trade libel, and therefore the court granted the anti-SLAPP motions of all defendants. The appellate court reverses the district court’s decision to exclude the expert testimony because it found the reasons cited by the district court constitute abuse of discretion. In the court’s view, admitting the expert evidence would not enhance the ability of Metabolife to prevail on its claims against one defendant, a professor of medicine, and therefore the court affirms the decision to grant that defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. However, as to the other defendants — a TV reporter and her broadcaster — the court reverses the decision to grant their anti-SLAPP motions on the grounds that their edited broadcast of the professor’s statements about Metabolife failed to qualify as “protected speech” under the First Amendment because they deleted crucial qualifiers from the original statement. In its opinion the court rules that the discovery-limiting provision of the anti-SLAPP statute (Section 425.16, subd. g) conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), and therefore cannot be applied in federal court. The dissent points out that, despite the general prohibition, the state statute nevertheless allows a judge to permit discovery “for good cause” and therefore does not conflict with the federal rule.

Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar
9th Circuit, 2010
611 F.3d 590

PLANET AID, INC. v. REVEAL, CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE  REPORTING
(August 11, 2022, No. 21-15690)

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical
Progress
9th Circuit, 2018
890 F.3d 828

Price v. Stossel
9th Circuit, 2010
620 F.3d 992

Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2010
660 F.3d 1156

Safari Club International v. Rudolph
9th Circuit, 2017
862 F.3d 1113

Sarver v. Chartier
9th Circuit, 2016
813 F.3d 891

Thomas v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
9th Circuit, 2005
400 F.3d 1206

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema (2002) does not undermine the court’s earlier decision in United States, ex rel. Newsham et al. v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. (see below) that the California anti-SLAPP motion to strike and entitlement to fees and costs are available in federal court.

Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Hirsh
9th Circuit, 2016
831 F.3d 1179

United States, ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.
9th Circuit, 1999
190 F.3d 963

In a case of first impression the court holds that subdivisions (b) and (c) of the California anti-SLAPP statute do not conflict directly with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus are applicable in federal diversity actions.

Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Communications Co.
9th Circuit, 2004
377 F.3d 1081

Verizon, as “incumbent local exchange carrier,” had several interconnection agreements with Covad, a competitive carrier. Verizon sued Covad for fraud, alleging that Covad had issued false “trouble tickets” as part of a scheme to reduce its own service costs. Covad asserted counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant Covad on Verizon’s claims and summary judgment for Verizon on Covad’s counterclaims. Defendants filed special motions to strike Verizon’s original complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, but the court granted Verizon leave to amend its complaint and deferred ruling on the motions to strike pending receipt of the amended complaint. The court then denied the motions to strike based on an analysis of the amended complaint. Both parties appealed the summary judgments; Covad appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms the district court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that “granting a defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike a plaintiff’s initial complaint without granting the plaintiff leave to amend would directly collide with Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)’s policy favoring liberal amendment.”

Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
9th Circuit, 2003
317 F.3d 1097

Plaintiffs filed a class action against a drug manufacturer, the American Psychiatric Assn. (APA), and Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), alleging that they promoted sales of Ritalin (used to treat hyperactivity) in violation of California’s unfair business practice laws. Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Procedure as well as an anti-SLAPP motion. The district court declined to rule on the anti-SLAPP motions before it had ruled on the motions to dismiss, deeming such motions premature. The district court first granted all of the motions to dismiss and then granted all of the anti-SLAPP motions. The appellate court agrees with the district court’s approach to ruling on the motions. It affirms the ruling on the anti-SLAPP motions of APA and CHADD on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ causes of action arise from speech protected by the First Amendment and plaintiffs had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. With respect to the drug manufacturer, however, because the court reverses the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, it also reverses the grant of that defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. (See also DuPont Merck Pharm. Co. v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, 4th District.)

Zamani v. Carnes
9th Circuit, 2007
491 F.3d 990

Bankruptcy Courts

Restaino v. Bah
U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, 2005
321 B.R. 41

Held: California’s anti-SLAPP statute is applicable in bankruptcy cases involving both federal questions and pendant state-law claims. The court agrees with the court in Globetrotter Software v. Elan Computer Group, Globetrotter v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc. (U.S. Dist. Ct. for No. Cal.; see above) that the anti-SLAPP statute is applicable to state-law claims but not to federal questions.

source

SOME GOOD 1ST AMENDMEND ANTI SLAPP LAW FOR YOU SISSY’S:

Anti Slapp Law Resources:

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Anti-SLAPP and Free Speech in Defamation & Emotional Distress Cases

Attorney Liability for Meritless Litigation Leading to Harm

Court tosses disbarred lawyer’s suit over newspaper article

]]> Libel and Slander – 1st Amendment https://goodshepherdmedia.net/libel-and-slander-1st-amendment/ Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:04:27 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=5634 Libel and Slander – 1st Amendment

Defamation is a tort that encompasses false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation.

There are two basic categories of defamation: (1) libel and (2) slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation, though much spoken speech that has a written transcript also falls under the rubric of libel.

The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press.

Right to protect one’s good name is heart of defamation law

Defamatory comments might include false comments that a person committed a particular crime or engaged in certain sexual activities.

The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote that the essence of a defamation claim is the right to protect one’s good name. He explained in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.”

Defamation suits can have chilling effect on free speech

However, defamation suits can threaten and test the vitality of First Amendment rights. If a person fears that she can be sued for defamation for publishing or uttering a statement, he or she may avoid uttering the expression – even if such speech should be protected by the First Amendment.  

This “chilling effect” on speech is one reason why there has been a proliferation of so-called “Anti-SLAPP” suits to allow individuals a way to fight back against these baseless lawsuits that are designed to silence expression. Professors George Pring and Penelope Canaan famously referred to them as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP suits.

Because of the chilling effect of defamation suits, Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, and Arthur Goldberg argued for absolute protection at least for speech about matters of public concern or speech about public officials.  The majority of the Court never went this far and instead attempted to balance or establish an accommodation between protecting reputations and ensuring “breathing space” for First Amendment freedoms. If the press could be punished for every error, a chilling effect would freeze publications on any controversial subject.

Libel was once viewed as unprotected by First Amendment

Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation weighed more heavily in the legal balance than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. Defamation, like many other common-law torts, was not subject to constitutional baselines.

In fact, the Supreme Court famously referred to libel in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words. Justice Frank Murphy wrote for a unanimous Court that “[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words.” 

Libel carried criminal penalties in early America

American and English law had a storied tradition of treating libel as wholly without any free-speech protections. In fact, libel laws in England and the American colonies imposed criminal, rather than civil, penalties. People were convicted of seditious libel for speaking or writing against the King of England or colonial leaders. People could be prosecuted for blasphemous libel for criticizing the church.

Even truth was no defense to a libel prosecution. In fact, some commentators have used the phrase “the greater the truth, the greater the libel” to describe the state libel law. The famous trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 showed the perils facing a printer with the audacity to criticize a government leader.

Zenger published articles critical of New York Governor William Cosby. Cosby had the publisher charged with seditious libel. Zenger’s defense attorney, Andrew Hamilton, persuaded the jury to engage in one of the first acts of jury nullification and ignore the principle that truth was no defense.

The Zenger case was more of an outlier than a trend. It did not usher in a new era of freedom. Instead, as historian Leonard Levy explained in his book Emergence of a Free Press (1985) that “the persistent notion of Colonial America as a society where freedom of expression was cherished is an hallucination which ignores history. … The American people simply did not believe or understand that freedom of thought and expression means equal freedom for the other person, especially the one with hated ideas.”

Sedition Act of 1798 passed to silence opposition regarding France

Even though the First Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, a Federalist-dominated Congress then passed the Sedition Act of 1798, which was designed to silence political opposition in the form of those Democratic-Republicans who favored better American relations with France.

The draconian law prohibited “publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government … with intent to defame … or to bring them … into contempt or disrepute.”  The law was used to silence political opposition.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan changed libel law nationally

Robert Welch (above) founded the ultraconservative John Birch Society and was publisher of its monthly American Opinion magazine. His magazine published an article about Chicago attorney Elmer Gertz, leading to a libel case in which the Supreme Court defined categories of public figures. The magazine had said Gertz was part of a Communist plot to discredit police. Gertz won, with the U.S. Supreme Court saying he was a private individual and did not have to meet actual malice standards. Gertz eventually was awarded $400,000 in damages. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)
Robert Welch (above) founded the ultraconservative John Birch Society and was publisher of its monthly American Opinion magazine. His magazine published an article about Chicago attorney Elmer Gertz, leading to a libel case in which the Supreme Court defined categories of public figures. The magazine had said Gertz was part of a Communist plot to discredit police. Gertz won, with the U.S. Supreme Court saying he was a private individual and did not have to meet actual malice standards. Gertz eventually was awarded $400,000 in damages. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Until the later half of the 20th century, the law seemed to favor those suing for reputational harm. For most of the 20th century, a defendant could be civilly liable for defamation for publishing a defamatory statement about (or “of and concerning”) the plaintiff. A defamation defendant could be liable even if he or she expressed her defamatory comment as opinion. In many states, the statement was presumed false and the defendant had the burden of proving the truth of his or her statement. In essence, defamation was closer to the concept of strict liability than it was to negligence, or fault.

However, in the celebrated case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized libel law. The case arose out of the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement. The New York Times published an editorial advertisement in 1960 titled “Heed Their Rising Voices” by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King. The full-page ad detailed abuses suffered by Southern black students at the hands of the police, particularly the police in Montgomery, Alabama.

Newspaper ad contained factual errors

Two paragraphs in the advertisement contained factual errors. For example, the third paragraph read:

“In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang ‘My Country, Tis of Thee’ on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and teargas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.”

In New York Times v. Sullivan, a city commissioner of Montgomery, Ala., sued the New York Times over a 1960 advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices." The ad highlighted struggles with police during the Civil Rights Movement. Because the ad contained factual errors, the libel claim could not be defeated by showing truth. The Supreme Court held that inaccurate statements in the ad did not negate the right to a free press and said to protect erroneous statements that are "inevitable in free debate" about public affairs, public officials must show actual malice before recovering damages. (Image of ad published March 29, 1960, public domain)
In New York Times v. Sullivan, a city commissioner of Montgomery, Ala., sued the New York Times over a 1960 advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices.” The ad highlighted struggles with police during the Civil Rights Movement. Because the ad contained factual errors, the libel claim could not be defeated by showing truth. The Supreme Court held that inaccurate statements in the ad did not negate the right to a free press and said to protect erroneous statements that are “inevitable in free debate” about public affairs, public officials must show actual malice before recovering damages. (Image of ad published March 29, 1960, public domain)

The paragraph contained undeniable errors. Nine students were expelled for demanding service at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse, not for singing ‘My Country, ‘Tis of Thee’ on the state capitol steps. The police never padlocked the campus-dining hall. The police did not “ring” the college campus. In another paragraph, the ad stated that the police had arrested Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seven times. King had been arrested four times.

Even though he was not mentioned by name in the article, L.B. Sullivan, the city commissioner in charge of the police department, sued the New York Times and four individual black clergymen who were listed as the officers of the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King.

Sullivan wins libel claim in Alabama state court

Sullivan demanded a retraction from the Times, which was denied. The paper did print a retraction for Alabama Gov. John Patterson. After not receiving a retraction, Sullivan then sued the newspaper and the four clergymen for defamation in Alabama state court.

The trial judge submitted the case to the jury, charging them that the comments were “libelous per se” and not privileged. The judge instructed the jury that falsity and malice are presumed. He also said that the newspaper and the individual defendants could be held liable if the jury determined they had published the statements and that the statements were “of and concerning” Sullivan.

The all-white state jury awarded Sullivan $500,000. After this award was upheld by the Alabama appellate courts, The New York Times appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court says Alabama libel law cannot violate First Amendment

The high court reversed, finding that the “law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.” 

For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that “libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations,” but must “be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.”  In oft-cited language, Justice William Brennan wrote for the Court: 

Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

The Court reasoned that “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate” and that punishing critics of public officials for any factual errors would chill speech about matters of public interest. The high court also established what has come to be known as “the actual malice rule.”   This means that public officials suing for libel must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the speaker made the false statement with “actual malice” — defined as “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” 

 

Supreme Court extends new ‘actual malice’ standard for public officials to public figures

The high court extended the rule for public official defamation plaintiffs in the consolidated cases of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and The Associated Press v. Walker (1967).

The cases featured plaintiffs Wally Butts, former athletic director of the University of Georgia, and Edwin Walker, a former general who had been in command of the federal troops during the school desegregation event at Little Rock, Arkansas, in the 1950s.

Because the Georgia State Athletic Association, a private corporation, employed Butts, and Walker had retired from the armed forces at the time of their lawsuits, they were not considered public officials. The question before the Supreme Court was whether to extend the rule in Times v. Sullivan for public officials to public figures.

Five members of the Court extended the Times v. Sullivan rule in cases involving “public figures.”

Justice John Marshall Harlan II and three other justices would have applied a different standard and asked whether the defamation defendant had committed “highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.”  The Court ultimately held that Butts and Walker were public figures.

However, sometimes the Court found that individuals were more private than public.

Court creates different standard for private figures

The Supreme Court clarified the limits of the “actual malice” standard and the difference between public and private figures in defamation cases in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).

The case involved a well-known Chicago lawyer named Elmer Gertz who represented the family of a young man killed by police officer Richard Nuccio. Gertz took no part in Nuccio’s criminal case in which the officer was found guilty of second-degree murder.

Robert Welch, Inc. published a monthly magazine, American Opinion, which served as an outlet for the views of the conservative John Birch society. The magazine warned of a nationwide conspiracy of communist sympathizers to frame police officers. The magazine contained an article saying that Gertz had helped frame Nuccio. The article said Gertz was a communist.

The article contained several factual misstatements. Gertz did not participate in any way to frame Nuccio. Rather, he was not involved in the criminal case. He also was not a Communist.

Gertz sued for defamation. The court had to determine what standard to apply for private persons and so-called limited purpose public figures. Then, the court had to determine whether Elmer Gertz was a private person or some sort of public figure.

Magazine argues that statements related to public concern should have higher libel protections

Robert Welch (above) founded the ultraconservative John Birch Society and was publisher of its monthly American Opinion magazine. His magazine published an article about Chicago attorney Elmer Gertz, leading to a libel case in which the Supreme Court defined categories of public figures. The magazine had said Gertz was part of a Communist plot to discredit police. Gertz won, with the U.S. Supreme Court saying he was a private individual and did not have to meet actual malice standards. Gertz eventually was awarded $400,000 in damages. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)
Robert Welch (above) founded the ultraconservative John Birch Society and was publisher of its monthly American Opinion magazine. His magazine published an article about Chicago attorney Elmer Gertz, leading to a libel case in which the Supreme Court defined categories of public figures. The magazine had said Gertz was part of a Communist plot to discredit police. Gertz won, with the U.S. Supreme Court saying he was a private individual and did not have to meet actual malice standards. Gertz eventually was awarded $400,000 in damages. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

The media defendant argued that the Times v. Sullivan standard should apply to any defamation plaintiff as long as the published statements related to a matter of public importance. Justice Brennan had taken this position in his plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971).  

The Court sided with Gertz on this question and found a difference between public figures and private persons.

The court noted two differences:

  1. Public officials and public figures have greater access to the media in order to counter defamatory statements; and
  2. Public officials and public figures to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risk of greater public scrutiny.

Court explains standards for private persons, limited-purpose public figures

For these reasons, the court set up a different standard for private persons:

We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.

This standard means that a private person does not have to show that a defendant acted with actual malice in order to prevail in a defamation suit. The private plaintiff usually must show simply that the defendant was negligent, or at fault. However, the high court also ruled that private defamation plaintiffs could not recover punitive damages unless they showed evidence of actual malice.

In its opinion, the Court also determined that certain persons could be classified as limited-purpose public figures with respect to a certain controversy. The Court noted that full-fledged public figures achieve “pervasive fame or notoriety.” However, the court noted that sometimes an individual “injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.”  Importantly, these limited-purpose public figures also have to meet the actual-malice standard.

The high court then addressed the status of Gertz. The high court determined that he was a private person, not a limited-purpose public figure. “He took no part in the criminal prosecution of Officer Nuccio,” the court wrote. “Moreover, he never discussed either the criminal or civil litigation with the press and was never quoted as having done so.”

Most important issue in defamation case is determining status of plaintiff

These cases show that perhaps the most important legal issue in a defamation case is determining the status of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is a public official, public figure or limited-purpose public figure, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted with actual malice with clear and convincing evidence. However, as Judge Robert Sack wrote in his treatise on Defamation law: “Determining who is a ‘public’ figure raises more difficult questions.”   (Sack, §1.5).

In several defamation cases, the Court found that individuals were private figures instead of public officials. For example, the Court ruled that a scientist who had received  a research grant from the federal government was a private figure in Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979). Similarly, in Time v. Firestone (1976), the Court held that the wife of a wealthy industrialist was a private figure.

If the plaintiff is merely a private person, the plaintiff must usually only show that the defendant acted negligently. If the private person wants to recover punitive damages, he or she must show evidence of actual malice.

Basic requirements of a defamation case

A defamation plaintiff must usually establish the following elements to recover:

  • Identification: The plaintiff must show that the publication was “of  and concerning” himself or herself.  
  • Publication: The plaintiff must show that the defamatory statements were disseminated to a third party. In slander cases, this generally means that the speaker’s defamatory comments must be heard by a third party.
  • Defamatory meaning: The plaintiff must establish that the statements in question were defamatory. For example, the language must do more than simply annoy a person or hurt a person’s feelings. But, one court reasoned that calling an attorney “an ambulance chaser” does have a defamatory meaning, because it essentially is accusing the lawyer of violating the rules of professional conduct, which limit solicitation.
  • Falsity: The statements must be false; truth is a defense to a defamation claim. Generally, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof of establishing falsity.
  • Statements of fact: The statements in question must be objectively verifiable as false statements of fact. In other words, the statements must be provable as false.
  • Damages: The false and defamatory statements must cause actual injury or special damages.

Defenses and privileges in a defamation case

There are numerous defenses and privileges to a defamation claim. These defenses can be either absolute or qualified. Many of these vary from state to state. Sometimes, a particular party has carte blanche to make certain statements even if they are false. This is called an absolute privilege. Other privileges can be established as long as certain conditions are met. These are called qualified privileges. Some of the more common defenses and privileges include:

Truth or substantial truth: Truth is generally a complete defense. Or stated another way, falsity is a required element of a defamation claim and, thus, truth is a defense. Many jurisdictions have adopted the substantial-truth doctrine, which protects a defamation defendant as long as the “gist” of the story is true.  The substantial truth doctrine means that as long as the bulk of a statement is true, the defendant has not committed defamation.

Statements in judicial, legislative, and administrative proceedings: Defamatory statements made in these settings by participants are considered absolutely privileged. For example, a lawyer in a divorce case could not be sued for libel for comments he or she made during a court proceeding. Likewise, a legislator cannot be sued for defamation for statements made in discussing bills.

Fair report or fair comment:  The fair report privilege, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, generally provides a measure of protection to a defamation defendant who reports generally accurately about the deliberations of a public body, such as a city council or school board meeting. For the privilege to apply, the reporter’s coverage generally must be a fair abridgement of what actually occurred at the governmental meeting.

Libel-proof plaintiffs: This defense holds that some plaintiffs have such lousy reputations that essentially they are libel-proof. The theory is that one cannot harm someone’s reputation when that person already has a damaged reputation. For example, those with extensive criminal records could be considered libel-proof.

Rhetorical hyperbole: Rhetorical hyperbole is a First Amendment-based defense that sometimes can provide protection for a defamation defendant who engages in exaggerated and hyperbolic expression.  For example, the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled in Letter Carriers v. Austin (1974) that a union’s use of the word “scab” was a form of rhetorical hyperbole.  Some courts will hold that certain language in certain contexts (editorial/opinion column) is understood by the readers to be figurative language not to be interpreted literally.

Retraction statutes: Nearly every state possesses a retraction statute that allows a defamation defendant to retract, or take back, a libelous publication. Some of these statutes bar recovery, while others prevent the plaintiff from recovering so-called punitive damages if the defendant properly complies with the statute.

Defamation, like many other torts, varies from state to state. For example, states recognize different privileges and apply different standards with respect to private-person plaintiffs. Interested parties or practitioners must carefully check the case law of their respective state.

Defamation suits can further important interests of those who have been victimized by malicious falsehoods. However, defamation suits can also threaten First Amendment values by chilling the free flow of information. Once again, this is why many states have responded to the threat of meritless defamation suits by passing so-called Anti-SLAPP statutes.

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a First Amendment Fellow at the Freedom Forum Institute and a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was published May 14, 2020.

By David L. Hudson Jr. cited https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander

Libel-Proof Plaintiff Doctrine – 1st Amendment

The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine was used in a 1975 ruling after a mobster claimed defamation by a book published by Doubleday & Co. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Cardillo v. Doubleday that Robert Cardillo, who was in federal prison, was libel-proof because he was a habitual criminal and had no good reputation to protect. The publication of My Life in the Mafia was protected by the First Amendment, the court said. (Photo of book cover)
The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine was used in a 1975 ruling after a mobster claimed defamation by a book published by Doubleday & Co. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Cardillo v. Doubleday that Robert Cardillo, who was in federal prison, was libel-proof because he was a habitual criminal and had no good reputation to protect. The publication of My Life in the Mafia was protected by the First Amendment, the court said. (Photo of book cover)

The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is a concept that insulates a speaker or publisher from liability for statements made about someone who has no good reputation to protect. The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. If a person has no reputation to protect, then he or she may be considered “libel-proof.”

If a plaintiff has no reputation to protect, they may be considered ‘libel-proof’

Judge Robert Sack, in his treatise Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander and Related Problems, describes the doctrine as “a notorious person is without a good name and therefore may not recover for injury to it.” (§2.4.18).

The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is related to the incremental harm doctrine, which provides that when many true statements accompany a false statement, the incremental harm done by the false statement is negligible.

Some state court decisions refer to two types of libel-proof claims: (1) the issue-specific approach and the (2) incremental harm approach.” (Hudson, 15). Whatever additional labels placed on the doctrine, the essence is that a defamation plaintiff is libel proof if he or she has no good reputation to protect.

Court has said a mobster, other criminals have no good reputation to protect

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used the doctrine to hold that a mobster had no good reputation to protect in Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co. (1975). Cardillo sued a book publisher for statements made about him by another organized crime figure. The book alleged that Cardillo had fixed horse races and committed other crimes. Cardillo sued for libel, but the federal appeals court rejected his claim, writing that he was “libel-proof” because he was a “habitual criminal.”

Other courts have applied the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine to murderers, convicted thieves, and those with numerous narcotics convictions.

The doctrine should be applied narrowly. “Convicted murderers and certain inveterate criminals are one thing, but applying the doctrine to anyone with a felony on their record would be problematic.” (Hudson, 16).

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a First Amendment Fellow at the Freedom Forum Institute and a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics.  He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018).  He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017).  This article was published June 2, 2020.

By David L. Hudson, Jr. cited https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1816/libel-proof-plaintiff-doctrine

 

 

 

 

 

 

The terms libel, slander, and defamation are frequently confused with each other. They are all similar in that they all fall into the same general area of law that concerns false statements which harm a person’s reputation. This general area of law is called defamation law. Libel and slander are types of defamatory statements. Libel is a defamatory statement that is written. Slander is a defamatory statement that is oral.

Historically, the distinction between libel and slander was significant and had real-world implications regarding how a case was litigated including the elements that had to be proven and who had the burden of proof. Illinois courts have changed their approach, however, as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in Bryson v. News America Publication, Inc.:

At common law, libel and slander were analyzed under different sets of standards, with libel recognized as the more serious wrong. Illinois law evolved, however, and rejected this bifurcated approach in favor of a single set of rules for slander and libel. Libel and slander are now treated alike and the same rules apply to a defamatory statement regardless of whether the statement is written or oral.

The tort of defamation (sometimes referred to as defamation of character) can be divided into claims involving two distinct types of statements: defamatory per se statements and defamatory per quod statements. Statements that are defamatory per se (sometimes referred to generically by courts as libel per se) are so obviously and naturally harmful to one’s reputation on their face that proof of injury is not required. Illinois law recognizes five types of statements that are considered defamatory per se:

  • Imputing that a person committed a crime;
  • Imputing that a person is infected with a loathsome communicable disease;
  • Imputing that a person is unable or lacks the integrity to perform one’s employment duties;
  • Imputing that a person lack ability or otherwise prejudices one in one’s profession; and
  • Imputing that a person has engaged in adultery or fornication.

Importantly, a statement can only be considered defamatory per se if the harmful effect is apparent on the face of the statement itself. If extrinsic facts or additional information about the person being defamed is required to understand the harmful effect of the statement, then it cannot be defamatory per se. That is not to say the statement is not defamatory if extrinsic facts are required; it just cannot be defamatory per se.

If a defamatory statement does not fall into one of the defamatory per se categories or requires extrinsic facts, then it is considered defamatory per quod. Unlike in cases involving defamation per se, defamation per quod claims require the plaintiff to allege and prove special damages (also called “special harm” by some courts). The term “special damages” or “special harm” is a legal term of art in defamation law that means the loss of something with actual economic or pecuniary value. In other words, a plaintiff alleging defamation per quod must be able to show specifically how the defamation caused a specific, quantifiable loss of money such as the commission from a lost sale or the salary from a lost job. source

 

 

California Defamation (Libel and Slander) Laws

To establish a defamation claim in California, you must prove four facts:

  1. That someone made a false statement of purported fact about you:
  2. That the statement was made (published) to a third party;
  3. That the person who made the statement did so negligently, recklessly or intentionally; and,
  4. That as a result of the statement, your reputation was damaged.

California law recognizes two types of defamation:

  • libel and
  • slander.

The main difference is whether a defamatory statement was made

  • verbally (constituting slander) or
  • in writing or other tangible medium (constituting libel).

 

 

1. What is the difference between defamation, libel and slander under California law?

Defamation is an invasion of the interest in reputation. Under California law, it is a broad term for false statements made that cause damage to someone’s good standing.

California Civil Code (Cal. Civ. Code) §44 states that defamation is affected by either libel or slander.1 If a statement is made verbally, it is slander. If made in writing, it is libel.

Cal. Civ. Code §45 and Cal. Civ. Code §46 provide the definitions for both libel and slander:

Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which tends to injure him in his occupation.

In some states, libel can sometimes be charged as a crime and be punishable by a fine and jail time. However, in California, people who have been defamed are limited to their right to recover damages in a civil lawsuit.

According to Cal. Civ. Code §46, slander is “a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered,” that does one or more of the following:

  • Charges you with a crime…;
  • Imputes in you the existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
  • Tends directly to injure you in respect to your office, profession, trade or business…;
  • Imputes to you impotence or a want of chastity; or
  • Which, by natural consequence, causes damage.2

Unlike libel, statutory rules for slander carve out certain types of oral comments that are deemed injurious.

Again, both libel and slander are different types of defamation.

2. What are the elements of a California defamation case?

In California, you must prove five elements to establish a defamation claim:

  1. An intentional publication of a statement of fact;
  2. That is false;
  3. That is unprivileged;
  4. That has a natural tendency to injure or causes “special damage;” and,
  5. The defendant’s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

2.1 Intentional publication of a statement of fact

Since California law treats defamation as an intentional tort, a defendant must have intended the specific publication.

A publication means communication to some third person who understands

  • the defamatory meaning of the statement and
  • its application to you.

A publication need not be to the public at large. A communication to a single person is sufficient.

With regards to statements of “fact,” a large issue arises in the context of whether a statement was either

  • a statement of fact or
  • a statement of opinion.

In general, if a defendant stated an opinion, as opposed to a fact, then there is no defamation. Over-generalizations and substantially true statements also do not generally qualify as defamation.3

However, a statement of opinion may still constitute defamation if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. The main determination is whether a reasonable person could conclude that the published statements imply a provably false factual assertion.4

The determination of whether a statement expresses fact or opinion is a question of law for the trial court, unless

“the statement is susceptible of both an innocent and a libelous meaning, in which case the jury must decide how the statement was understood.”5

Note that when you sue for libel or slander, the best practice is to use the “exact words” of the defamatory statement in the pleadings. However, it may be enough in slander cases for you to convey the substance of what was said rather than the exact words.6

2.2 False publications

In California defamation lawsuits, you must present evidence that a statement of fact is provably false.

If the person who made the alleged defamatory statement was telling the truth, it is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

For example, if a person is spreading a rumor about you, and this rumor is true, there is no defamation.

In cases involving matters of purely private concern, the burden of proving the truth is on the defendant.

A defendant does not have to show the literal truth of every word in an alleged defamatory statement. It is sufficient if the defendant proves true the substance of the charge.

In cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on you to prove falsity.

2.3 Unprivileged publications

A statement must be unprivileged to be actionable as defamation. This is also to say that a showing of privileged communication is a defense against a defamation lawsuit.7

California courts have codified several privileged communications in Cal. Civ. Code § 47. According to this section, some examples of absolute privileged publications include statements made:

  • In the proper discharge of an official duty:
  • In a legislative or judicial proceeding; or
  • By a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal of a judicial, legislative, or another public official proceeding.

The above remain privileged no matter what, even if they include statements that would otherwise be considered defamatory. Meanwhile, the following is an example of a common interest privilege (a.k.a. conditional privilege):

  • A communication, without malice, to a person interested therein,
    1. 1) by one who is also interested, or
    2. 2) by one who stands in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent, or
    3. 3) who is requested by the person interested to give the information.

This common interest privilege is a qualified privilege because it only applies to “communication without malice.”

The privilege is lost if the publication was actuated by malice. Once the defense has demonstrated that the qualified privilege applies, you have the burden of defeating it by showing malice.

Journalists, for example, have qualified privilege to write about and discuss public-interest matters. If they get the facts wrong, they should not be held liable unless they acted with actual malice.8

2.4 Injures or causes special damage

The fourth element in a California defamation action requires you to show that a publication caused injury or “special damages.” When it comes to this showing injuries or damages, California defamation cases fall into one of two categories. These include:

  1. Defamation “per se”
  2. Defamation “per quod”

2.4.1 What is defamation “per se”?

In some defamation cases, the publication or defamatory statement in question is considered so damaging that you are entitled to sue without having to prove actual damages.

Such statements constitute defamation per se under California law. Per se is a Latin term meaning “of itself.” Depending on whether the statements are written or spoken, this could be referred to as slander per se or libel per se.

California law has a broad definition of “per se” defamation. It consists of anything that is damaging on its face without further explanation. Examples include false statements that:

  1. call you a communist;
  2. claim you have an infection, contagious, or loathsome disease;
  3. claim you are unchaste or impotent;
  4. harm you in your job (business, trade, profession, office);
  5. accuse you of committing, being indicted for, being convicted of, or being punished for a crime;
  6. charge you with treachery against your associates;
  7. charge you with violating the confidence reposed in you.
  8. subject you to public contempt, hatred, or ridicule; and
  9. cause you to be shunned or avoided.

Most “per se” cases occur when someone falsely accuses another person of having committed a crime or being unfit to practice the person’s trade, business, or profession.9

2.4.2 What is defamation “per quod”?

In California, if a defamation case is not categorized as “per se,” it is defamation “per quod.” Per quod is a Latin term meaning by which or whereby.

If a defamatory publication is “per quod,” it means that the publication

  • is not defamatory on its face and
  • requires allegations and proof of special damages.

Examples of special damages might include (but are not limited to):

  • lost profits;
  • decreased business traffic; and/or,
  • adverse employment consequences.

Defamation per quod cases require the use of extrinsic evidence or explanatory information to show the libel or slander.10

2.5 Fault needed in California defamation cases

As with any personal injury in California, the defendant must have acted with a degree of legal culpability for you to be entitled to damages. However, the level of culpability required in a California defamation case depends on whether you are a public or private figure.

When you are a private individual, you are only required to prove that the defendant was negligent in determining whether the statement at issue was true or not.

A public figure, however, is held to a higher standard. Public figures must prove affirmatively that a statement was false.

As a public figure, you must also prove “actual malice.” This means that the defendant made the defamatory statement either

  • with knowledge that it was false (in other words, intentionally lied) or
  • with reckless disregard for the truth.

Likewise, when an allegedly defamatory statement involves a matter of public concern (as opposed to a private matter), you have the burden to prove that the defendant acted with malice.11

2.5.1 Who is a public figure under California defamation laws?

In California, to classify a person as a public figure, the person must have achieved such pervasive fame, prominence, or notoriety in the community that they became a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. Some examples of a public figure under California law include:

  • An author;
  • Public officials/politicians in government.
  • A television or multi-media personality;
  • The founder of a church;
  • A real-estate developer; and
  • Other celebrities.

California law also requires that “limited-purpose” public figures prove malice in order to prevail in a defamation claim.

A limited-purpose public figure is different than an all-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is a person who voluntarily injects themself or is drawn into a particular public controversy.12

As examples, the following persons have been considered limited-purpose public figures under California defamation law:

  • The president of two corporations that opposed rezoning issues affecting his property; and,
  • A self-proclaimed expert in earthquake safety.13

    3. What about my right to free speech?

    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of free speech. However, this right is not absolute.

    The United States Supreme Court has long held that there is “no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”

    4. What are defenses to defamation in California?

    There are numerous defenses available in a California defamation case. Some have been touched on already. A few of the more common defenses include:

    • The defendant’s statement was true;
    • The statement was not published;
    • The statement was privileged;
    • You gave express, informed, implied, or unanimous consent to the publication;
    • The statement was an opinion or fair comment on a matter of public interest;
    • The statement was not made negligently or with malice; and/or,
    • The defendant never said anything negative about you.

    Another potential defense is that the allegedly defamatory statement is protected under California’s Anti-SLAPP statutes. SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are frivolous lawsuits filed without merit and in bad faith for the purpose of intimidating, silencing, or censoring the alleged defamer.

    In order for a defamation case to be dismissed on Anti-SLAPP grounds, the court has to find that:

    1. The defendant was exercising their right of petition or free speech regarding a public issue, and
    2. You did not demonstrate any probability that you would win the defamation case.14

    An experienced California defamation attorney can advise you on which, if any, defenses might apply to your defamation suit.

    5. What may I recover in a California defamation case?

    If you are successful in your defamation case, you may recover damages.

    In general, you may be awarded three types of damages. These include:

    1. General damages, which are damages for your loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings;
    2. Special damages, which are damages for your property, trade, profession or occupation; or,
    3. Punitive damages, which are damages awarded in the discretion of the superior court or the jury, to be recovered in addition to general and special damages, and to be awarded for the sake of example and by way of punishing a defendant.

    The specific type(s) of damages you may be awarded will most likely depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case.

    6. How long do I have to file a defamation case?

    In general, California’s statute of limitations to bring a defamation lawsuit is one year after the untrue statement was first published or spoken.15

    Since California abides by the “single publication rule,” the one-year clock starts running when the defamatory statement first appears. The clock does not restart every time the same statement is subsequently published (such as through a retweet).16

    Though if the defamatory statement is edited, then it is likely that the one-year clock will restart with the first publication of the revised version.17

    Note that in some cases, this one-year time limit does not start running until you discover (or reasonably should have discovered) the defamation. This “discovery rule” is typically applied when the untrue statement is not public knowledge or difficult to find.18

    7. Is defamation a crime?

    Defamation is not a criminal offense in California. Though it is a crime in 23 other states plus the U.S. Virgin Islands.19

    8. What is the Streisand effect?

    The Streisand effect is when a person attempts to block information from becoming public, but this attempt only draws more attention to the information.20 Even if you end up prevailing on a defamation claim, it may be a pyrrhic victory if the case attracted more attention than the original defamation did.

    Merely writing a cease and desist letter could cause damage if it ends up being published.

    If you have been defamed, consult with an attorney to discuss the pros and cons of moving forward with the case and how best to keep it under the radar.

    9. Related cause of action – false light

    A false light claim in California creates a right to sue when someone knowingly or recklessly creates publicity about you in a way that unreasonably places you in a false light.

    In general, you must prove the following elements in a false light suit:

    1. The defendant published some information about you;
    2. The information portrayed you in a false or misleading light;
    3. The information was highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person; and,
    4. The defendant published the information with reckless disregard as to its offensiveness.

    Public disclosure of private facts is a similar cause of action. A form of invasion of privacy, this tort occurs when a person publicly disseminates private or embarrassing facts about you, without your consent, and without a legitimate public concern for the topic.

    While defamation is meant to protect you from injury to your reputation, false light is meant to protect you from the offense or embarrassment that arises from a misleading or untrue implication. (See our article on defamation vs fight light). source

Legal references:

  1. See California Civil Code §44.
  2. See California Civil Code sections § 45 & § 46. See also Mattel, Inc. v. Luce (2002) 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 794.
  3. Gregory v. McDonell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596. See also Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, 2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 247 (re. “substantial truth doctrine”).
  4. Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 829.
  5. Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 375, 385.
  6. See Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442 (re. special pleading standards: “Nor is the allegation defective for failure to state the exact words of the alleged slander…we conclude that slander can be charged by alleging the substance of the defamatory statement.“).
  7. Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.
  8. Cal. Civ. Code § 47. Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 368, 370-371. See also Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 847-848. Note that these types of privilege are recognized under California law: absolute, fair report, neutral report, and qualified. See also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1972) 418 US 323.
  9. Jimeno v. Commonwealth Home Builders (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, 1920) 47 Cal. App. 660 (defining defamation per se as statements “that tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, and to induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons and deprive him of their friendly intercourse or society”). See, for example, Del Junco v. Hufnagel (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, 2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 789 (it was defamation per se when defendant said that plaintiff had insufficient medical training to operate); Albertini v. Schaefer (Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, 1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d 822 (it was defamation per se to say that an attorney was a “crook”); Montandon v. Triangle Publication, Inc. (Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two, 1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 938 (it was defamation per se to call a woman a “call-girl”); Nguyen-Lam v. Cao (Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, 2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 858; Bates v. Campbell (1931) 213 Cal. 438; Ray v. Citizen-News Co. (Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, 1936) 14 Cal. App. 2d 6; Dethlefsen v. Skull (Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, 1948) 86 Cal. App. 2d 499. Note that unlike California, most states recognize only four kinds of defamation per se.
  10. Slaughter v. Friedman (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 149 (a dental patient’s allegations that the dentist overcharged and performed unnecessary procedures interfered with the dentist’s “economic relations with his patients”. Unlike with defamation per se, “the [statement’s] injurious character or effect [must] be established by … proof”).
  11. Stolz v. KSFM 102 FM (Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, 1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 195. See also Brown v. Kelly Broad. Co. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 711, 747 (“[A] publication or broadcast by a member of the news media to the general public regarding a private person is not privileged under [Civil Code] section 47(3) regardless of whether the communication pertains to a matter of public interest. Thus, a private-person plaintiff is not required by section 47(3) to prove malice to recover compensatory damages.”).
  12. Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 829 (Limited-purpose public figures “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the issues involved.” Meanwhile, all-purpose public figures attract “attention and comment” on all types of public and personal matters.). Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, 2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 551 (“A public official or a limited public figure must prove the defendant published defamatory statements about the plaintiff with actual malice, or, in other words, with knowledge of the statements’ falsity or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.“).
  13. Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 829. Kaufman v. Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n (Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, 1983) 140 Cal. App. 3d 913.
  14. Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publ’g Co. (Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, 1996) 37 Cal. App. 4th 855. Code of Civil Procedure 425.16.
  15. California Civil Procedure, Code § 340.
  16. Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath (Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, 2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 392 (“the cause of action will accrue upon the first general distribution of website publications to the public.”). Cal. Civ. Code 3425.1-3425.5.
  17. LegacyQuest v. Rosen (Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One, 2012) No. A129177 (“changes to defamatory material on a website may begin a new limitations period.”).
  18. Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1230.
  19. Map of States with Criminal Laws Against Defamation, ACLU. US Virgin Islands Code 1171-1183.
  20. Mario Cacciottolo, The Streisand Effect: When censorship backfires, BBC (June 15, 2012).

Defamation vs. False Light: What’s The Difference?

The core difference between defamation and false light is that defamation harms the victim’s reputation, while false light invades the victim’s privacy. There are many implications that come from this difference. For example, a defamatory statement only has to be made to one other person, while false light requires the disclosure to be to the wider public.

How is defamation different from a false light claim?

The main difference between a defamation claim and a claim for false light is that defamation causes reputational harm, while a disclosure in false light invades the victim’s privacy and caused emotional distress.

This difference is very nuanced. It does not sound like the two are different, at all. In fact, many states do not treat them as separate claims. However, the implications of this difference are significant. It changes:

  • how widespread the disclosure has to be,
  • whether it matters that the victim is a public or a private person,
  • whether the defendant made the statement with reckless disregard for the truth,
  • whether the statement at issue has to be offensive or embarrassing, and
  • how truth can be used as a legal defense to the lawsuit.

Widespread disclosure

To be defamation, the statement only has to be made to a single other person. To be false light, it has to be a public disclosure of private facts.

What amounts to a “public disclosure” is vague. Under common law, it is a public disclosure if the offending statement was made to the public in general or to a large number of people.1

However, the number of people who must have seen or heard the statement is only one factor that courts seem to consider. In California, for example, one court found that a true statement published in a country club newsletter was not sufficiently public.2

Another court found that a letter sent to 1,000 men was sufficiently public.3 The differences between these 2 cases, though, are striking: The country club’s newsletter was only sent to members, not to the general public, while the letter was purportedly from a semi-famous actress, asked the 1,000 recipients to meet her at a time and place, and was sent without the actress’ knowledge.

Therefore, the extent of the publicity that the disclosure needs in order to support a claim for false light will depend on the circumstances of the case. For defamation, though, the libelous statement only has to be made to a single other person.

Status of victim as a public or a private figure

In defamation, it matters whether the victim is a public figure or a private one. In false light claims, it does not matter.

The status of the victim determines whether a defamatory statement must have been made with actual malice or not. Public figures have to show actual malice in order to succeed in a defamation claim.4 Private figures do not have to show actual malice, though they may still need to show that the defendant was not merely negligent.

False light claims do not differentiate between public and private figures.

Reckless disregard for the truth

The actual malice standard that is required for some defamation cases can be satisfied by showing that the defendant made the defamatory statement knowing that the statement was a falsehood, or with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard is only used when the victim was a public figure. When the defamed party was a private figure, he or she only has to show that the statement was negligent.

The actual malice standard is always used in false light claims, regardless of whether the victim was a public figure or a private individual. Victims always have to show that the defendant knew the statement would put the victim in a false light, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.5

Offensive statement

A statement has to be offensive to a reasonable person to support a false light claim. It does not have to be offensive, at all, to support a defamation lawsuit.

Truth as a defense

Truth is always a defense to a defamation allegation. No matter how badly the statements damage the victim’s reputation, if they were true, then the person making them is not liable for libel or slander.

In a false light action, truth may only be a defense if both the statement and its implications are true. This means that true facts that insinuate something false can lead to a false claim lawsuit.6

What is defamation?

Defamation is a statement that is harmful to someone’s reputation. If the statement is made verbally, it is slander. If it is made in writing, it is libel.

In California, plaintiffs who are not public figures have to prove the following elements to win a defamation claim involving matters of public concern:

  • the defendant made the statement to a third party,
  • the third party reasonably understood that the statement was about the victim,
  • the third party reasonably understood the meaning of the statement,
  • they were false statements, and
  • the defendant failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statements.7

If the victim was a public figure, he or she also has to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant knew the statements were false, or had serious doubts about their veracity.8

What is a false light invasion of privacy?

The tort of false light is an invasion of privacy claim where someone publishes offensive information that is either false, or that implies something false. The name comes from the embarrassment that the victim suffers: The offensive information exposes them to the public in a false light.

In California, personal injury plaintiffs pursuing a false light lawsuit have to show that:

  • the defendant publicly disclosed information or material that showed the victim in a false light,
  • the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in the victim’s position,
  • there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant:
    • knew the disclosure would create a false impression about the victim,
    • acted with a reckless disregard for the truth, or
    • was negligent in determining the truth of the information or whether a false impression would be created by its disclosure;
  • the victim was harmed or sustained harm to his or her property, business, occupation, or profession, and
  • the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing that harm.9

Many jurisdictions, like Colorado, do not have a distinct cause of action for a false light invasion of privacy tort. There, the state supreme court stopped recognizing false light cases because of their similarities with defamation law, as well as their potential to chill the Freedom of the Press and Free Speech rights under the First Amendment.10  source

Legal References:

  1. Santiesteban v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 306 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1962).
  2. Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club, 214 Cal.App.3d 646 (1989).
  3. Kerby v. Hal Roach Studios, 53 Cal.App.2d 207 (1942).
  4. The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
  5. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967).
  6. Godbehere v. Phoenix News Inc., 162 Ariz. 335 (1989).
  7. California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 1702.
  8. CACI No. 1700.
  9. CACI No. 1802.
  10. Denver Publishing Company v. Bueno, 54 P.3d 893 (2002).

 

 

 

]]> CounterSpeech Doctrine – 1st Amendment https://goodshepherdmedia.net/counterspeech-doctrine-1st-amendment/ Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:26:43 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=5604 CounterSpeech Doctrine – 1st Amendment

The counterspeech doctrine posits that the proper response to negative speech is to counter it with positive expression. It derives from the theory that audiences, or recipients of the expression, can weigh for themselves the values of competing ideas and, hopefully, follow the better approach.

The counterspeech doctrine is one of the most important free expression principles in First Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Brandeis: “More speech, not enforced silence”

Justice Louis D. Brandeis established it in his classic concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927), when he wrote:

“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Counterspeech is not always a perfect remedy

Some observers argue that the counterspeech principle makes a better ideal than a reality, primarily because some people or groups in society possess far more power than do others. For example, proponents of critical race theory contend that minorities often are denied access to the marketplace of ideas to counter harmful speech.

Others argue that some types of speech — for example, pornography and hate speech — are so harmful that counterspeech alone is not an adequate response.

First Amendment experts Robert Richards and Clay Calvert (2000) offer that “[a]lthough counterspeech is not always a perfect remedy, individuals and courts should seriously consider it as a solution. When used wisely, counterspeech may prove to be a very effective solution for harmful or threatening expression” (p. 555).

Supreme Court suggests more speech instead of restrictions

The Supreme Court applied Brandeis’s principle in Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Townships of Willingboro (1977) in striking down a city ban on “for sale” signs designed to combat white flight. The Court wrote that a better response for the city would be to continue its “process of education” by “giving widespread publicity to ‘Not for Sale’ signs.”

Later, Justice Clarence Thomas cited Brandeis’s counterspeech passage from Whitney in his concurring opinion in Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001), which invalidated a number of restrictions on tobacco advertising. Thomas wrote that if the state of Massachusetts’ “concern is that tobacco advertising communicates a message with which it disagrees, it could seek to counteract that message with ‘more speech, not enforced silence.’”

Court uses counterspeech doctrine in First Amendment cases

In more recent years, the Court continues to use the counterspeech doctrine in First Amendment cases.   

Justice Anthony Kennedy has cited Justice Brandeis’ famous principle in his plurality opinion in United States v. Alvarez (2012) and his dissenting opinion in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015). 

In Alvarez, the Court struck down the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, a law that broadly prohibited virtually any false speech about military honors.  “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true,” Kennedy wrote. “This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics.  He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018).  He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.​

By David L. Hudson Jr. cited https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/940/counterspeech-doctrine

]]> Hartman v. Moore (2006) – Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment https://goodshepherdmedia.net/hartman-v-moore-2006-retaliatory-prosecution-claims-against-government-officials-1st-amendment/ Tue, 13 Aug 2024 18:47:24 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=7485 Hartman v. Moore (2006) –
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials –
1st Amendment

By David L. Hudson Jr.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

In Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs alleging federal civil claims—in this case, violation of First Amendment expressive rights— for retaliatory prosecution must prove the absence of probable cause for the retaliation as an essential element of their claims.

Moore criticized postal service for not using his new technology

The case involved William G. Moore Jr., the chief executive officer of a company that offered multiple optical character readers that would enable the U.S. Postal Service to read and sort mail much quicker than with its standard single-line scanning machines. Moore had lobbied Congress, testified before committees, and engaged in other First Amendment–protected activity that criticized the postal service for not using the new technology.

Postal Service investigated Moore for criminal charges

The U.S. Postal Service eventually employed this new technology but entered into a contract with one of Moore’s competitors. Postal inspectors then investigated Moore to determine whether he had participated in a kickback scheme with a postal service governor. The postal inspectors urged that criminal charges be brought against Moore and his company, but after a six-week trial, a federal district court dismissed the charges, finding a “complete lack of direct evidence” linking Moore to criminal wrongdoing.

Moore claimed investigation was retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights

Moore then filed a federal civil claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (1971), alleging retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. He claimed that the prosecutor and postal inspectors had engineered the investigation because he had publicly criticized the U.S. Postal Service. A federal court granted the prosecutor immunity, but the claims against the postal inspectors continued. The inspectors contended that the claims against them must fail because Moore must prove a lack of probable cause. Moore countered that he need only show that a substantial factor in the decision to bring the unfounded criminal charges was retaliation for his protected activities.

Court said Moore had to show lack of probable cause for the investigation

By a 5-2 vote (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A.Alito Jr. did not participate), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff alleging retaliatory prosecution under Bivens or under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 must show a lack of probable cause. Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter explained, “Because showing an absence of probable cause will have high probative force, and can be made mandatory with little or no added cost,it makes sense to require such a showing as an element of a plaintiff’s case, and we hold that it must be pleaded and proven.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, dissented, noting that the record in the case showed that the postal inspectors engaged in “unusual prodding” of the prosecutor to institute criminal charges against Moore. Ginsburg reasoned that requiring a lack of probable cause will deter “only entirely baseless prosecutions” and allow “retaliators” to pursue many claims that should not be brought. She agreed with the federal appeals court standard that allows retaliatory prosecution claims where the plaintiff shows “strong motive evidence combine(d) with weak probable cause” and that the claim would not have been brought but for the retaliatory animus.

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics.  He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018).  He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.​

cited https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/847/hartman-v-moore

 

Facts of the case

William Moore sued six postal inspectors in federal court, alleging that they had brought criminal charges against him in retaliation for lobbying efforts he undertook on behalf of his company. The inspectors claimed that they had qualified immunity (that is, because they filed the charges in their official capacity on good faith, they could not be sued) and also that the case should be dismissed because they had probable cause to charge Moore. The district court sided with Moore, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed, finding that, even with probable cause, they must show that that the prosecution was not motivated by a desire for retaliation.

Question

Are law enforcement agents liable for retaliatory prosecution in violation of a defendant’s First Amendment free speech rights when the prosecution was supported by probable cause?

Conclusion

Sort: 

No. In a 5-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the postal inspectors, overruling the Court of Appeals. The opinion by Justice David Souter held that plaintiffs alleging retaliatory prosecution must prove that the law enforcement agents lacked probable cause. Probable cause, the Court ruled, is a crucial component of the “chain of causation” needed to evaluate retaliatory prosecution charges. Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent, which Justice Breyer joined. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito took no part in the decision. cited https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1495


SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2005
HARTMAN V. MOORE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

HARTMAN et al. v. MOORE

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 04–1495. Argued January 10, 2006—Decided April 26, 2006

Seeking to convince the United States Postal Service to incorporate multiline optical scanning technology, a company (REI), which manufactured multiline optical readers, commenced an extensive lobbying and public-relations campaign. In the end, the Postal Service begrudgingly embraced the multiline technology, but awarded the lucrative equipment contract to a competing firm. Subsequently, Postal Service inspectors investigated REI and its chief executive, respondent Moore, for their alleged involvement in a consulting-firm kickback scandal and for their alleged improper role in the search for a new Postmaster General. Urged at least in part by the inspectors to bring criminal charges, a federal prosecutor tried REI and its top officials. But, finding a complete lack of evidence connecting them to any wrongdoing, the District Court acquitted the defendants. Moore then filed an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, against the federal prosecutor and petitioner postal inspectors, arguing, as relevant here, that they had engineered the prosecution in retaliation for his lobbying efforts. The claims against the prosecutor were dismissed in accordance with the absolute immunity for prosecutorial judgment. Ultimately, the entire suit was dismissed, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the retaliatory-prosecution claim against the inspectors. Back in District Court, the inspectors moved for summary judgment, claiming that because the underlying criminal charges were supported by probable cause they were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: A plaintiff in a retaliatory-prosecution action must plead and show the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charges. Pp. 5–15.

   (a) As a general matter, this Court has held that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U. S. 574, 592. When nonretaliatory grounds are insufficient to provoke the adverse consequences, retaliation is subject to recovery as the but-for cause of official injurious action offending the Constitution, see, e.g., id., at 593, and a vengeful federal officer is subject to damages under Bivens. Pp. 5–6.

   (b) Although a Bivens (or 42 U. S. C. §1983) plaintiff must show a causal connection between a defendant’s retaliatory animus and subsequent injury in any retaliation action, the need to demonstrate causation in the retaliatory-prosecution context presents an additional difficulty which can be overcome by a showing of the absence of probable cause. In an ordinary retaliation case, the evidence of motive and injury are sufficient for a circumstantial demonstration that the one caused the other, and the causation is understood to be but-for causation, without which the adverse action would not have been taken. When the claimed retaliation is, however, a criminal charge, the action will differ in two ways. First, evidence showing whether there was probable cause for the criminal charge will be highly valuable circumstantial evidence to prove or disprove retaliatory causation. Demonstrating a lack of probable cause will tend to reinforce the retaliation evidence and show that retaliation was the but-for basis for instigating the prosecution, while establishing the existence of probable cause will suggest that the prosecution would have occurred even without a retaliatory motive. Second, since the defendant in a retaliatory-prosecution case will not be the prosecutor, who has immunity, but an official who allegedly influenced the prosecutorial decision, the causal connection required is not between the retaliatory animus of one person and that person’s own injurious action, as it is in the ordinary retaliation case, but between the retaliatory animus of one person and the adverse action of another. Because evidence of an inspector’s animus does not necessarily show that the inspector induced the prosecutor to act when he would not have pressed charges otherwise and because of the longstanding presumption of regularity accorded prosecutorial decisionmaking, a showing of the absence of probable cause is needed to bridge the gap between the nonprosecuting government agent’s retaliatory motive and the prosecutor’s injurious action and to rebut the presumption. Pp. 6–13.

(c) The significance of probable cause or the lack of it looms large, being a potential feature of every case, with obvious evidentiary value. Though not necessarily dispositive, the absence of probable cause along with a retaliatory motive on the part of the official urging prosecution are reasonable grounds to suspend the presumption of regularity behind the charging decision and enough for a prima facie inference that the unconstitutionally motivated inducement infected the prosecutor’s decision to go forward. Pp. 13–15.

388 F. 3d 871, reversed and remanded.

   Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. cited https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/250/

 

Learn more about these sujects

  • Malicious Prosecution
  • Prosecutional Misconduct
  • Vindictive Prosecution
  • Retaliatory Prosecution
  • Abuse of Process

Selected Issues in Malicious Prosecution Cases

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct

Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University

VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

What is Abuse of Process?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution?

 

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution

 

SCOTUS Makes It Easier To Sue Police And Prosecutors For Malicious Prosecution

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

National District Attorneys Association – National Prosecution Standards – NDDA

What Happens If Charges Are Dropped Before Trial?

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

 

Thomp$on v. Clark – Maliciou$ Pro$ecution 

Reichle v. Howards (2012) – Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials –1st Amendment

People v. Superior Court (Greer) 5th & 8th Amendment – Bias / Malicious Persecutor

Hartman v. Moore (2006) –Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Epic SCOTUS Decisions

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links

Abuse & Neglect – The Reporters  (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect – California Penal Code 11164-11166

Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

 Mandated Reporter formclick linkMandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS

INFORMATION BULLETIN Click H ere Officers and DA’s  for (Procedure to Follow)

It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – 1st Amendment

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidencein California Courts – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports

We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

 Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS

We also have the  Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS

We also have the 9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS

We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of RightsSCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relatingfor PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law – The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Contesting / Appeal an Order / Judgment / Charge

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California –  Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

 Epic Criminal / Civil Rights SCOTUS Help – Click Here

At issue in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) was whether a conviction under state law prohibiting profane language in a public place violated a man's First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Supreme Court vacated the man's conviction and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its recent rulings about fighting words. The man had used profane language at a public school board meeting. (Illustration via Pixabay, public domain) Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Rights Help – Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct

 

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Please take time to learn new UPCOMING 

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.

 

]]>