PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........Litigation Privilege
 24 Cards On This Topic:
  • Common interest privilege prevented plaintiff from showing a probability of prevailing on the merits upon his anti-SLAPP motion, and plaintiff could not show defendant's actual malice to negate privilege.
  • Under anti-SLAPP statute, tenant could demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of her retaliation and retaliatory eviction claims against landlord where the litigation privilege did not apply.
  • The divorce proviso exception to the litigation privilege operated to render wife's statements in dissolution proceeding unprotected; wife's anti-SLAPP motion denied.
  • Complaints to financial planner's employer regarding his alleged fraud and embezzlement were not protected by the litigation privilege where made neither to achieve litigation objectives nor when litigation was under serious consideration.
  • Defendant law firms' assertion of the litigation privilege defeated P's ability to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims under anti-SLAPP analysis.
  • While D's statements about the litigation were protected activity, he did not show it was covered by the litigation privilege and probate court must determine whether P met her burden under CCP §425.16's 2d step.
  • Caregiver did not demonstrate likelihood of prevailing on the merits of defamation claim as he failed to show all requisite elements, and the CC 47(c) "common interest" privilege applied.
  • D attys' CCP 425.16 motion affirmed where a supposedly stolen hard drive, given to them for litigation purposes, resulted in P's attempt to disqualify them, for the sole "crime" of representing their clients in the underlying action.
  • Litigation privilege did not apply where Ps alleged an independent, noncommunicative, wrongful act.
  • CC 47(b)(1) exception to litigation privilege applies only to statements made in disso. proceeding by or against 3d party, not where statements are made against a party.
  • Ds' prelitigation statements not protected under CCP 425.16 because they related to litigation barred by res judicata and were not in anticipation of litigation.
  • CCP 425.16 applicable to P's complaint re her arrest on warrant arising from alleged failure to appear as subpoenaed witness, and she had no probability of prevailing as CC 47(b) immunized Ds' conduct.
  • Anti-SLAPP motion should not have been granted where letters and emails at issue were not covered by the litigation privilege as prelitigation communications.
  • As atty's communication of settlement offer to OPC is protected activity subject to absolute litigation privilege, trial court properly ruled Ps' lawsuit a SLAPP action.
  • Public dissemination of official's alleged defamatory statements protected by official acts privilege of CC 47(a) privilege and trial court properly granted Ds' special motion to strike.
  • Retaliation claim arose from protected activity and subject to CCP 425.16—P could not show probability of prevailing on merits as litigation privilege operated as absolute bar to claim.
  • PC 11172 damages for false child abuse report inapplicable where victim/defendant filed report, which is absolutely privileged under CC 47 (b); D's motion to strike improperly denied.
  • Voicemail messages from attorney re subject of dispute in anticipation of litigation were covered by anti-SLAPP statute and litigation privilege D's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted.
  • No error in denying Ds' motion to strike P's libel and unfair business practices complaint as they failed to show their debt collection actions fell within CCP 425.16
  • D met his burden to show P employer's complaint arose from protected speech where D disclosed info about P to counsel, authorities, in depo and testimony per subpoena, and disclosures to family and friends not relevant.
  • Special motion to strike broker's defamation and business interference allegations should have been granted where employer satisfied both prongs of CCP 425.16 test.
  • Court properly granted special motion to strike where complaint arose from protected activity and Ps not likely to prevail on merits.
  • As Ps made sufficient showing of probability of prevailing on defamation claim based on D's Web site comments, trial court erred in granting special motion to strike.
  • As news and internet articles concerning SEC complaint re Ps' internet activities, plus consent decree, were "fair and true," Ps unable to show probability of prevailing on merits and CCP 425.16 motion to strike affirmed.


    •