PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........Procedure
 22 Cards On This Topic:
  • In federal district court, if an anti-SLAPP motion challenges the legal sufficiency of a claim, it is treated as a motion to dismiss; if the factual sufficiency of a claim is challenged, it is treated as a motion for summary judgment.
  • Excepting a trial court’s discretion under CCP §425.16(f) to permit late filing, a defendant must move to strike a cause of action within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that contains that cause of action.
  • Plaintiffs may not be granted leave to amend their complaint upon the grant of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion because to do so would undermine the purpose of the statute.
  • Plaintiff is not precluded from amending her complaint to add another defendant when the original defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is pending.
  • One-year SOL in CCP 340.6(a) applies to malicious prosecution claim brought against attorney based on his/her participation in the litigation on which the malicious prosecution claim is based.
  • Where P files amended complaint removing original allegations of protected conduct, such filing renders moot a later-filed anti-SLAPP motion based on the original complaint.
  • As one-year SOL under CCP 340.6 applies to action for malicious prosecution against attorney rather than the two-year SOL which applies to malicious prosecution actions generally, attys' motion to strike properly granted.
  • In appeal from denial of anti-SLAPP motion, trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits because prior to the ruling Ps had voluntarily dismissed before trial commenced.
  • No error in failing to issue statement of decision supporting its order granting P’s anti-SLAPP motion; general rule is that SOD is not required for order on motion.
  • Trial court abused its discretion in granting D’s application to file anti-SLAPP motion for beyond 60-day limit where D did not provide compelling reasons or extenuating circumstances.
  • In arguing atty fees are excessive because too many work hours claimed, burden on challenger to point to specific items, with proper argument and citations—general arguments that fees are excessive or duplicative do not suffice.
  • P or cross-complainant may not avoid CCP 425.16 pleadings challenge by amending challenged complaint or cross-complaint before motion to strike is heard.
  • No abuse of discretion in denying D's reconsideration motion, filed 10 months after CCP 425.16 motion to strike was denied, based on timeliness provision of CCP 125.16(f).
  • Language of CCP 425.16(g) must be read to mean that discovery motions, including those that are pending, are also stayed upon the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion.
  • CCP 425.16 does not authorize super. ct. to grant motion to strike an arbitration claim filed only in an agreed arbitral forum and not asserted by claimant in complaint, cross-complaint or petition filed in court.
  • Appeal of court's discretionary denial of CCP 425.16 motion filed 278 days after service of complaint, dismissed as frivolous where claim of abuse of discretion "indisputably ha[d] no merit."
  • Where party expressly consented to untimely hearing date on anti-SLAPP motion to strike, he thereafter waived his right to object.
  • D's hearsay statement, admitted without objection, can be considered in determining whether P met burden of proving probability of success on merits.
  • Communications b/t attys and employees of parties were covered by litigation privilege and P failed to present evidence to show probability of overcoming application of CCP 47 (b).
  • Resolution of underlying action does not moot a fee request under CCP 425.16.
  • Special motions to strike properly denied where they were noticed for hearing more than 30 days after service.
  • Anti-SLAPP statute has no provision, stated or implied, for amending complaint; such implication would completely undermine statute and its quick dismissal remedy.


    •