PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........In General
 54 Cards On This Topic:
  • Special motion to strike; purpose and procedure.
  • District court erroneously concluded Cal. anti-SLAPP statute unavailable to litigants in federal courts.
  • Internet service providers or users cannot be sued as distributors; P defamed in Internet posting may only seek recovery from original source.
  • P's action for improper intrusion into private matters proper based on claim D got personal & sensitive info from P's former foster mother by claiming she worked with psychiatrist who had close professional relationship to P.
  • CCP 425.16 procedure available in lawsuit brought by hospital staff physician and arising out of disciplinary recommendation by hospital's peer review committee, an "official proceeding authorized by law."
  • Anti-SLAPP statute did not apply where D's communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law and were thus unprotected by constitutional guarantees of free speech or petition.
  • Trial ct. should have granted CCP 425.16 motion where P could not prevail on 1st Amend/invasion of privacy claim based on media Ds' publishing facts from public official records of his criminal proceeding.
  • To obtain dismissal of SLAPP under CCP 425.16, D need not demonstrate action was brought with the intent to chill D's exercise of constitutional speech or petition rights.
  • Cotati's state court declaratory relief action re constitutionality of mobilehome park rent stabilization ordinance, filed in response to fed. court declaratory relief action by park owners, is not subject to special motion to strike.
  • D moving specially under anti-SLAPP statute to strike C/A arising from statement made in connection with issue in official proceeding, need not show it was of public significance.
  • The anti-SLAPP statute applies to a federal civil rights action brought in state court.
  • Anti-SLAPP motion meritorious where P's cross-claims for indemnity arose directly from defendants' lawsuit, and where P could not demonstrate a probability of overcoming defendants' unconscionability defense.
  • Law of the case doctrine did not compel denial of defendants' anti-SLAPP motion where allegations of third amended complaint differed materially from first.
  • The law of the case doctrine did not operate to bar law firms' anti-SLAPP motions even where a prior ruling found that law firms' client's conduct was not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
  • Mtn to strike cross-complaint should have been denied where P/Cross-D’s prelit. e-mail demand constituted extortion as a matter of law and not protected under anti-SLAPP statute nor subject to litigation privilege.
  • Doctor's C/As against hospital for committee suspending his staff privileges and terminating his contract were subject to anti-SLAPP motion under Kibler and barred due to P’s failure to exhaust admin. remedies.
  • As use of discovery subpoenas in K arb. of UM claim under Ins. Code is a writing in connection with 'any other official proceeding authorized by law,' atty met his burden of showing underlying acts arose from protected activity.
  • W's atty was clearly involved in petitioning activity per CCP §425.16 even though she violated CRC 1.20 by failing to redact personal identifiers before filing H's credit report with W's motion.
  • D's CCP 425.16 motion properly denied where Ps’ negligence claim based on their own E’s false depo testimony—to turn Ps' own constit'l right against them when they claim negligence and fraud in exercising that right is manifestly unfair.
  • As Attorneys' actions in changing Mother's will and defending H against W's child support claims were protected activities, special motion to strike properly granted.
  • As landlords' motion to strike did not satisfy 1st "protected activity" prong of CCP 425.16, trial court erred in granting it as to C/As in tenant's complaint.
  • D's cross-complaint subject to anti-SLAPP motion where conduct and statements of P alleged in the cross-complaint arose from protected activity, or were incidental to it.
  • Attorney did not meet threshold showing that client's claims arose from CCP 425.16 petitioning activity where gravamen of claim rested on atty's breach of fiduciary duty to client.
  • Although Fox News show, displaying MANHUNT AT THE BORDER while anti-illegal immigration activist showed Ps' photos, may not have been fair and balanced, it was not defamatory and Fox's anti-SLAPP motion properly granted.
  • No error to grant Chinese Chamber of Commerce’ motion to strike Falun Gong’s claim re exclusion from Chinese New Year events as events are expressive and govt cannot compel Chamber to include contrary cultural message.
  • Employers' complaint against former employee and magazine which printed his comments about employer properly stricken under CCP 425.16.
  • Employer's letter to customers alerting them to employee's misappropriation of trade secrets was covered by anti-SLAPP statute as employer was seriously, in good faith, contemplating litigation against employee.
  • Brando's will/living trust are of widespread public interest, and complaint by beneficiary re Ds' interview with her arose from conduct in furtherance of Ds' right of free speech in connection with public issue.
  • Trial court properly struck complaint per CCP 425.16 as to allegedly defamatory stmts USD officials made in newspaper and parent meeting about football coach's firing.
  • Law firm's C/As in X-complaint against client fell within anti-SLAPP statute, where based on client's petitioning activity—her starting fee arbitration under MFAA, and initiating X-complaint against firm.
  • City made prima facie showing that Ps' lawsuit to limit duration of council meetings arose out of protected activity and Ps did not establish they had standing to sue.
  • Trial court erred in denying insurers/employers anti-SLAPP motion where entire complaint fell within scope of CCP 425.16.
  • HO assoc. letter to members re lawsuit with homeowner who refused access for maintenance obligations fell w/in litigation privilege; order denying special motion to strike reversed.
  • CCP 527.8 workplace violence petitions are subject to special motions to strike.
  • Litigation seeking judicial review of action or decision by public entity not subject to special motion to strike merely because challenged action or decision was taken by vote after discussion at public meeting.
  • Anti-SLAPP motions may be filed challenging CCP 527.6 petitions for injunctive relief because they are "causes of action" under anti-SLAPP law; CCP 425.16 does not exempt such petitions from broad reach of this remedial statute.
  • As Ps failed in every respect to meet burden of showing they pleaded, and had evidence to back up, a valid cause of action, order denying special motion to strike reversed.
  • Error to grant CCP 425.16 motion to strike in case of attorney breach of duty of loyalty.
  • Trial court abused its discretion in permitting discovery on issue of actual malice before first determining, after briefing and argument, whether Ps had reasonable probability of establishing other elements of libel cause of action.
  • Denial of Metabolife's special motion to strike affirmed where for-profit advertising of safety and efficacy of its product did not concern issue of public interest under CCP 425.16.
  • A citizen's arrest is not protected activity under the CCP 425.16 anti-SLAPP statute.
  • Claims that Grobust offers "The All-Natural Way To A Fuller, More Beautiful Bust!" do not constitute speech on a matter of "public interest" within meaning of CCP 425.16.
  • Credit card solicitations are not acts of free speech in connection with a public issue, and are not subject to special motion to strike provisions.
  • Causes of action arising out of false allegations of criminal conduct did not arise from protected activity and were not subject to CCP §425.16.
  • Special motion to strike applied to judicial candidate's breach of contract and fraud complaint against state bar arising from its rating her as not qualified.
  • City's civil enforcement action exempt from anti-SLAPP statute and trial ct. erred in finding it applicable.
  • Court erred in granting special motion to strike where D didn't meet his burden of demonstrating P's action subject to CCP 425.16.
  • D’s special motion to strike should have been denied as to P’s tort claims, because D did not make prima facie showing that those claims fell within the ambit of the CCP 425.16.
  • Talk show Ds' special motion to strike should have been granted where they made threshold SLAPP showing and P failed to then carry burden of proving comments made about her were actionable.
  • Insurance company's declaratory relief action to resolve coverage issues does not qualify as a SLAPP suit.
  • P did not meet burden of showing amended cross-complaint subject to special motion to strike where alleged causes of action arose from P’s bidding and contracting practices, not from acts in furtherance of its right of petition or free speech.
  • Code Civ. Proc. §425.16 special motion to strike can apply to individual cause of action and one brought against attys who provided representation in a prior lawsuit.
  • Anti-SLAPP suit motion should have been granted as applied to named D and denied to extent it contemplated C/As against unnamed Doe Ds based on proven violent acts.
  • Classification created by exemption of public prosecutors’ enforcement actions from anti-SLAPP motions does not violate equal protection.