PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........Probability of Prevailing
64 Cards On This Topic:

Upon anti-SLAPP motion, plaintiff showed a probability of prevailing where attorneys signed parties' settlement agreement under "approved as to form and content," but terms of agreement purported to bind attorneys.

Interim adverse judgment rule precluded malicious prosecution action as trial ct.'s finding of bad faith after a bench trial in underlying action did not negate its prior ruling denying SJ.

A special motion to strike under the CCP §425.16 anti-SLAPP statute may be granted based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; a court need not make a determination on the merits.

Action based on D's counterclaims in prior, unrelated proceeding in federal court, arose from activity protected by CCP 425.16; remand required to see if Ps established probability of prevailing.

Defendants' and their attorney's anti-SLAPP motions properly denied where plaintiff demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of his malicious prosecution claim.

Denial of anti-SLAPP motion reversed where plaintiffs could not show a probability of prevailing on their claims where the application of CC §3344.1 is limited to commercial speech.

Anti-SLAPP motion incorrectly denied where plaintiffs could not demonstrate that defendant's allegedly defamatory statements were false.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where there were disputed material facts as to whether defendants had probable cause to pursue their mislabeling lawsuit against jeans manufacturer.

Husband was able to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits based on prima facie evidence that wife could not avail herself of the interim adverse judgment rule due to its fraud exception.

Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where neighborhood flap did not raise issues about the public interest, even where the dispute made an appearance on the internet.

Anti-SLAPP motion granted where there was no reasonable probability of success on the merits for malicious prosecution action against attorney.

Rulings on anti-SLAPP motions upheld where trial ct. properly analyzed the plaintiffs' probability of prevailing on malicious prosecution actions.

Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to plaintiff's amended complaint was timely filed under CCP §425.16(f) where it alleged new causes of action.

Defendant-attorney's anti-SLAPP motion properly granted where plaintiff could not demonstrate that attorney did not have probable cause in bringing lawsuit against her.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where law firm could not show a probability of prevailing on its defamation claim against former client's daughter.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where D engaged in protected activity in its internal investigation of P, but P showed his retaliation claims had minimal merit.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly denied as to plaintiff's defamation claims where defendant authorized and ratified his attorney's press releases, and where press releases concerned plaintiff and made actionable assertions.

TV series producers' motion to strike properly denied where plaintiff demonstrated a probability of succeeding on the merits of its inducement of breach of contract and interference with contract claims.

Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion improperly granted where plaintiff demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of his malicious prosecution action.

Probate ct.'s decision rejecting beneficiary's attempt to amend a trust could be used by co-beneficiary to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits of her claim to enforce trust's no contest clause.

Plaintiffs' short declarations that failed to show defendants' allegedly defamatory statements were false did not support plaintiffs' probability of prevailing on their claims.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly granted where plaintiff could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his defamation claims due to the fair report privilege.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly granted where Congressman did not show that defendant's allegedly defamatory statements were not substantially true, and therefore did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits.

Plaintiff demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its causes of action where Davis-Stirling Act did not allow defendant homeowners association to pursue legal claims without joining its individual members.

Plaintiff could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his taxpayer waste cause of action against air quality management district where he did not show district refused to follow the law.

Plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing in breach of contract action where attorneys were not parties to settlement agreement, but only signed it under the words "approved as to form and content."

Correctional officers could not show a probability of prevailing on their claims for deprivation of representation where they were not under investigation.

Because public employment in CA is held by statute and not contract, plaintiff could not demonstrate a probability of success on his breach of contract claim for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.

Under anti-SLAPP analysis, film star does not show a probability of success on the merits for her claims for right of publicity and false light arising from her portrayal in a cable television docudrama.

Litigation privilege prevented plaintiffs from demonstrating a probability of success on their claims against whistleblower's attorney where attorney's conduct was communicative.

P failed to establish a probability of prevailing on its breach of contract claims against Individual Ds that were not parties to the contract; negligent misrepresentation claim also failed.

Anti-SLAPP motion denied as to plaintiff's defamation suit where defendant's demand letter and press release contained provable facts, and not protected opinions.

Anti-SLAPP motion to strike denied where plaintiff showed that its malicious prosecution action had a probability of success on the merits.

Plaintiffs cannot show likelihood of success of right of publicity claim to defeat anti-SLAPP motion where interactive computer service merely placed its ads on same page as plaintiffs' images posted by another information content provider.

Restaurant's anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where Animal Legal Defense Fund showed a probability of prevailing on the claim that the restaurant unlawfully "sold" Foie Gras in violation of CA ban.

Special motion to strike properly denied where P not only showed a probability of prevailing, but had in fact prevailed on its interpleader complaint.

Chiropractor did not establish probability of prevailing on defamation claim where common interest privilege of CC 47(c) protected claims investigator's statements to assistant of lawyer representing insurance claimants treated by P.

City Board members may strike mandate petition where Ps could not show probability of prevailing as members' actions at Bd. meeting arose out of 1st Amend. voting and legislative deliberative activities on an important public issue.

As therapist acting as reunification counselor in protracted F/L case showed a probability of prevailing on the merits of defamation C/A against H, order denying H's special motion to strike affirmed.

Denying D's special motion to strike libel claim proper where his Yelp review of building's owner contained some factual assertions, not mere opinion, and Ps submitted enough evidence to show a probability of prevailing.

Under 2d step of CCP 425.16 analysis, P did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claim for extortion as it was barred by the litigation privilege of CC §47(b).

Anti-SLAPP motion correctly denied as to cross-Ds where D submitted sufficient evidence to show the falsity of alleged slanderous statements for purposes of the anti-SLAPP motion; no privileges, and immunities applied.

D's anti-SLAPP motion properly granted where P's complaint arose from D's exercising her free speech by posting derogatory stmts about him on Internet Web sites and he could not show probability of prevailing.

As the request for judicial notice of minute order, facts of which court did not accept as true, was P's only evidence opposing anti-SLAPP motion, he did not carry his burden of production re likelihood he would prevail on the merits.

In lawsuit against attys from prior lawsuit, their anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted and they should be awarded fees and costs as prevailing parties.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly granted where cross-C failed to show probability of prevailing on abuse of process and unfair business practices C/As based on questions asked by cross-D's atty during depositions in another case.

Ps, whose names were used in draft of CSI episode, didn't show probability of prevailing on defamation and privacy invasion C/As where they didn't show a reasonable person would understand defamatory statements referred to them.

Denial of Ds' anti-SLAPP motion proper where statements in their press release and leaflets, accusing employer of mass employment termination based upon racist and ageist motivations, clearly constituted "provable fact."

Statements made by employer to EDD that psychotherapist/social worker was responsible for suicide of inmate she was counseling arose from employer's free speech exercise and P failed to then prove she could prevail on merits.

Where P fails to demonstrate allegedly defamatory statements are provably false factual assertions, which P must do to establish probability of prevailing on defamation claim, no good cause exists for discovery re actual malice.

As restaurant chain's action arose from Ds' filing Prop. 65 intent-to-sue notice, a protected activity, it was properly subject to Ds' motion to strike, but chain unable to show probability of prevailing.

Although breach of K C/A arose from protected activity, trial court properly denied Ds' anti-SLAPP motion where P showed probability of prevailing on claim.

Since abuse of process cross-complaint arose out of conduct protected by anti-SLAPP statute, and probability of success on merits was shown, it was not error to deny special motion to strike, even if a bit premature.

Motion to strike properly denied animal activist group as its statements furthering conspiracy not protected speech and more than sufficient evidence indicated research company could show probability of prevailing on its claims.

D's e-mail questioning financial condition of holding company, which was subject of public hearings and newspaper reports, concerned matter of public interest under CCP 425.16 (e)(4); P then failed to show probability of success.

Podiatrist's defamation suit against Chronicle and sports figures properly stricken under CCP 425.16 as statements in Chronicle article protected speech on public issue and P could not show he would prevail on merits.

D law firm's special motion to strike should have been granted where bankr. trustee's claims barred by unclean hands and P investors' claims barred by SOL and they did not establish likelihood of prevailing on claims.

D's special motion to strike complaint that she filed fraudulent WC claim properly granted where no probability her employer would prevail upon its fraud claim.

P's libel complaint against former lover for statements made in published letter during adoption proceedings arose from D's protected speech w/in scope of CCP 425.16 and P failed to establish probability of prevailing on claim.

Court properly granted Planned Parenthood's CCP 425.16 motion to strike where P did not meet burden of showing reasonable probability of prevailing on merits of injunctive relief claims.

D's free speech rights to protest adult strip club at mini-mall not violated by injunction; Ps' entitlement to injunction demonstrated it had reasonable probability of prevailing on merits.

Since product liability complaint not based on, and did not arise from protected commercial speech activity, burden never shifted to Ps to demonstrate probability of prevailing on claims.

Plaintiffs did not establish probability of prevailing on fraud or breach of contract claims as required by the second prong of CCP 425.16 test.

Special motion to strike appropriate where D met initial burden of showing P's action subject to anti-SLAPP statute, and P then failed to establish probability he would prevail in court.