Part 1 of 2: In a notable and well-written opinion by Justice Cuéllar[1] for the court, the California Supreme Court recently reversed a Second District Court of Appeals decision holding the context of speech challenged by an anti-SLAPP motion is irrelevant to the motion’s analysis under California’s anti-SLAPP law, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16[2]. Plaintiff FilmOn is a for-profit business. It …
Defamation: Anti-SLAPP Motions, Mixed Causes of Action and the Litigation Privilege in Los Angeles and San Diego
Last month a Los Angeles Court of Appeals decided a libel case involving mixed causes of action, i.e., claims including legally protected and unprotected statements or activity, in framework of the litigation privilege.1 The defendant-cross-complainant-respondent (Kettler) is a financial planner and advisor who assisted plaintiffs elderly parents for 20 years. Shortly after their deaths, the plaintiff daughter sued for misappropriation …
The California Supreme Court Has Revised the Timing for filing an anti-SLAPP
To Defendants: A Notable Change in the Law of Defamation – The California Supreme Court Has Revised the Timing for filing an anti-SLAPP (motion to strike). 1 California law provides a procedure for early evaluation and resolution of meritless libel and slander lawsuits. Called a “Special Motion to Strike” one or more causes of action in a complaint, and often …