Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances." (Code Civ. Proc, ยง 425.16(a).)
In enacting the "anti-SLAPP statute," the Legislature found that "it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process." (Id., ยง 425.16, subd. (a).)
To effectuate this public interest, the anti-SLAPP statute provides a procedural mechanism to identify and dismiss such lawsuits at an early stage of the proceedings. It provides: "[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (425.16(b)(1).)
โAn anti-SLAPP motion is not a vehicle for a defendant to obtain a dismissal of claims in the middle of litigation; it is a procedural device to prevent costly, unmeritorious litigation at the initiation of the lawsuit.โ (San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction, Inc. (2015) 240 Cal. App. 4th 611, 625โ626.)
An anti-SLAPP motion must be filed within 60 days after the service of the complaint and must be heard within 30 days after service of the motion, unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing. See CCP ยง 425.16(f).
ยง 425.16(f) provides, in relevant part, as follows: โThe special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the courtโs discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.โ (Id.) โThe motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.โ (Id.)
Under CCP ยง 425.17(c), a cause of action against a defendant primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing its goods or services is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, if all of the following conditions are met:
In ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion, a trial court uses a โsummary-judgment-like procedure at any early stage of the litigation.โ (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192.) This is a two-step process. First, the defendants must show that the acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken โin furtherance of the [defendant]โs right of petition or free speech under the United States of California Constitution in connection with a public issue.โ (Code Civ. Proc., ยง425.16 subd. (b)(1).) Next, if the defendant carries that burden, the burden shift to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 425.16 subd. (b)(3).)
"[U]nder Code of Civil Procedure ยง 425.16, subdivision (c), any SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney fees. The fee-shifting provision was apparently intended to discourage such strategic lawsuits against public participation by imposing the litigation costs on the party seeking to 'chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.' [Citation.]" (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131, citing CCP ยง 425.16.)
In Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 39, the defendant company argued that the listing of product ingredients on labels and a web site was commercial speech protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court disagreed, holding that commercial speech that is not intertwined with noncommercial speech is not entitled to the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. (Id. at 47.) Similarly, in Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica International Center (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 595, the Court held that a companyโs claims about its herbal supplement in product literature constituted purely commercial speech not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Id. at 599-606; see also Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 679, 687-688 [consumer claims against a product manufacturer for false advertising and misbranding of products were not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute because they were representations of fact made to prospective purchasers.])
In L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. The Independent Taxi Owners Association of Los Angeles (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 918, plaintiff taxicab service companies sued defendant taxicab service companies for false advertising. The court denied defendantsโ special motion to strike under CCP ยง 425.16. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, denying defendantsโ motion to strike. The Court held that the false advertising claims were not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute because the conduct alleged โ leading Internet searchers to believe they were being directed to plaintiffโs phone numbers and web sites, when they were actually being directed to defendantโs phone number and web sites) was purely commercial speech. (Id. at 930.)
Reply in support of Anti-SLAPP motion. 14.0 6.0 8.0 3/22/2022 Review all Finalized reply papers in support of Anti-SLAPP and supporting documents to authorize for filing. 2.8 1.0 1.8 3/22/2022 Draft objections to Mitte Declarations for Anti-SLAPP Reply based on archive file documents. 4.0 0.0 4.0 3/28/2022 Plan and prepare for Anti-SLAPP hearing.
MAP GROUP, LLC, ET AL. VS TERRANCE HOWARD, ET AL.
21STCV37225
Nov 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The following month, Keyes filed a motion for leave to file its own anti-SLAPP motion as to Sameyahs complaint against Keyes beyond the deadline for filing anti-SLAPP motions (which is normally 60-days after service of the complaint that is the target of the anti-SLAPP motion). The Court granted Keyes motion. Keyes anti-SLAPP motion is now pending before the Court. The Court is granting it and striking Sameyahs complaint as to Keyes.
DARYOUSH SAMEYAH VS RAMI GISHI, ET AL.
22STCV24943
Dec 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 15, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on Gishis anti-SLAPP motion to February 17, 2023. The Court granted Gishis anti-SLAPP motion at the February 17, 2023, but also concluded that Keyes joinder was improper and that Keyes thus needed to file its own anti-SLAPP motion. A month later, on March 17, 2023, Keyes filed the Motion for Leave. The hearing was set for nearly seven months later.
DARYOUSH SAMEYAH VS RAMI GISHI, ET AL.
22STCV24943
Oct 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that good cause has been established to continue the hearing on the demurrer and the anti-SLAPP motion and to shorten time on the hearing on the anti-SLAPP discovery motion. However, a cursory review of Oehlerโs requested discovery in relation to the anti-SLAPP motion reveals that Oehlerโs requested discovery is not limited to issues raised in the anti-SLAPP motion (see Slauson Partnership v. Ochoa (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1021).
SONJA OEHLER VS THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
BC610699
Sep 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Court (per Judge David Sotelo) denied Perez's anti-SLAPP motion on the ground that Perez had failed to establish, at the first step of the well-established two-step process for evaluating anti-SLAPP motions, that SLC's complaint against him arises from an act in furtherance of Perez's right of petition or free speech under the federal or California constitutions in connection with a public issue -- acts that the anti-SLAPP statute treats as protected.
SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER VS CHARLES PEREZ
BC695768
Aug 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has waived any argument that the underlying anti-SLAPP motion lacked merit. Defendant Hilary Altman filed the anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Defendant Hilary Altman then filed the motion for fees under the anti-SLAPP statute, which requires the court to evaluate the merit of the underlying anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff's opposition to the fee motion did not argue about the merit of the underlying motion.
HUSSAIN VS PERALTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
RG20057885
Aug 27, 2021
Alameda County, CA
The anti-SLAPP special motion to strike re: the 3AC was filed 58 days later on August 9, 2018. The issue, thus, is not whether the anti-SLAPP motion was untimely relative to the 60-day deadline set forth in CCP ยง 425.16(f). In this regard, the Courtโs discretion under ยง 425.16(f) is not even arguably implicated. Rather, the issue is whether Defendants were entitled to file an anti-SLAPP motion to the 3AC, when no anti-SLAPP motions had been filed as to the original complaint, 1AC or 2AC.
ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL
BC680035
Oct 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The anti-SLAPP special motion to strike re: the 3AC was filed 58 days later on August 9, 2018. The issue, thus, is not whether the anti-SLAPP motion was untimely relative to the 60-day deadline set forth in CCP ยง 425.16(f). In this regard, the Courtโs discretion under ยง 425.16(f) is not even arguably implicated. Rather, the issue is whether Defendants were entitled to file an anti-SLAPP motion to the 3AC, when no anti-SLAPP motions had been filed as to the original complaint, 1AC or 2AC.
ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL
BC680035
Nov 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Rather, the issue is whether Defendants were entitled to file an anti-SLAPP motion to the 3AC, when no anti-SLAPP motions had been filed as to the original complaint, 1AC or 2AC. In other words, at this stage of the litigation, is Defendantsโ anti-SLAPP motion timely? Since this case was filed, there has been significant law and motion and discovery propounded.
ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL
BC680035
Nov 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
(c)(1), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred bringing the motion. The fee award is mandatory. Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131. Because Aimco prevailed on its anti-SLAPP motion, a fee award is mandatory. Cross-complainants argue fees should not be awarded because the TACC was not frivolous or brought in bad faith. This is immaterial, since prevailing party fees are mandatory after a successful anti-SLAPP motion.
AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS SOPHIE HUESCA, ET AL.
20SMCV00130
Mar 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Nonetheless, because Plaintiff had filed an opposition to an anti-SLAPP motion filed by Barnes, it appears that the anti-SLAPP motion was served upon Plaintiff. Even if Defendant Barnesโ counsel served, but failed to file, the anti-SLAPP motion, this would constitute an attorney fault which caused the entry of the clientโs default. CCP ยง 473(b).
DEBRA ANN REID ET AL VS GERALD BARNES ET AL
BC699884
Oct 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
$4,466.00 10/12/18 Continue to draft anti-SLAPP motion and supporting documents; conduct relevant legal and factual research; finalize motion for filing 5.60 $580.00/hr. $3,248.00 10/12/18 Edit anti-SLAPP motion 2.00 $740.00/hr. $1,480.00 11/3/18 Analyze Merrittโs opposition to anti-SLAPP motion and his supporting documents (6 documents total); draft reply in support of anti-SLAPP motion; conduct relevant legal and factual research 6.10 $580.00/hr.
PHILIP MERRITT ET AL VS A CECILIE BOYSEN ET AL
BC713946
Apr 22, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
The fees being sought do not include any time spent on the first anti-SLAPP motion even though Denison was able to use a significant portion of that work for the second anti-SLAPP motion. Denison Decl., ยถ 17. Moreover, the fee motion was entirely new. However, plaintiffs' counsel seeks $156 in fees and costs to appear at the anti-SLAPP hearing via CourtCall. Plaintiffs' counsel was not required to appear on the anti-SLAPP since that motion had been withdrawn.
MARTIN P MONTOYA VS. MELODY L GROVER
37-2017-00017773-CU-PN-CTL
Dec 06, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The court explained in its January 17, 2020 ruling denying Plaintiffโs motion for attorneyโs fees she incurred in opposing Defendant Hotel California by the Sea, LLCโs anti-SLAPP motion that while Defendant did not prevail on its anti-SLAPP motion, its motion was not frivolous. The court also ruled that Plaintiff has not shown that the anti-SLAPP motion was filed solely to cause unnecessary delay. (ROA 136.)
NEEBLE-DIAMOND V. HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC
30-2019-01058756-CU-WT-CJC
Jan 31, 2020
Orange County, CA
Both parties have appealed the courtโs order on the anti-SLAPP motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c) provides for attorneyโs fees and costs for a successful defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion.
FCS055354 - JONES, JUDITH VS. COOMBS TREE FARM, INC., ET (DMS)
FCS055354
Nov 18, 2021
Solano County, CA
Carson has filed a notice of non-opposition to this motion, but includes a reservation of the right to file an opposition to any anti-SLAPP motion actually filed. There being a request for leave and no showing of prejudice for allowing an anti-SLAPP motion to be filed, the motion for leave to file an anti-SLAPP motion is GRANTED. Motion to be filed within 30 days.
CARSON WILD WINGS, LLC VS LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV39870
Jul 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs oppose the request for $85,143.05 on the grounds the original 99.75 hours to prepare the anti-SLAPP, the 26.1 hours to prepare the reply to the anti-SLAPP motion, and the 8 hours for preparing for the hearing are all excessive and should be reduced. The court agrees the hours spent on the anti-SLAPP motion is excessive.
BLF INC. DBA LARRABURE FRAMING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,, ET AL. VS CARPENTERS-CONTRACTORS COOPERATION COMMITTEE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,, ET AL.
19VECV01412
Aug 11, 2020
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Litigation Privilege Lastly, Defendants argued in their anti-SLAPP motion that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). (Anti-SLAPP Mtn. 15:4-20.) This argument essentially mirrored the one made regarding the first prong. (See ibid. [for substantially the same reasons that they are subject to anti-SLAPP protection, plaintiffs claims are barred by the litigation privilege].)
JANICE FOX VS THEODORE FOX, ET AL.
21STCV18183
Jan 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 6, 2021, this Court GRANTED Defendants EDDIE DE LA RIVA; REYNA MENDEZ; and CARMEN PEREZโs (โDefendantsโ) anti-SLAPP Motion as to 8 out of 9 causes of action that they moved to strike. Defendants now move for attorneyโs fees pursuant to CCP ยง425.16(c)(1) as the prevailing parties on an anti-SLAPP motion.
JOSE MENDOZA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS CITY OF MAYWOOD, ET AL.
20NWCV00592
Aug 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On 8/8/16, plaintiffs filed the first anti-SLAPP motion to strike portions of the cross-complaint. On 10/17/16 the Court denied the first anti-SLAPP motion and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend . On 11/4/16, defendants filed the Second Amended Cross-Complaint. On 11/28/16, plaintiff Gonzalez Ek filed the second anti-SLAPP motion to strike. On 2/10/17 the Court granted the second anti-SLAPP motion. The case went to trial.
GONZALEZ EK VS TORRES MARTINEZ
RG15793782
Dec 15, 2020
Alameda County, CA
FCS059061 Defendantโs Motion for Attorneysโ Fees Following Anti-SLAPP Motion TENTATIVE RULING Defendant DOMINIQUE HUNTER moves for an award of attorneysโ fees following her successful special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (โanti-SLAPPโ motion) against Plaintiff VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTโs first amended complaint. Attorneysโ Fees Following Anti-SLAPP Motion. A prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to reasonable attorneysโ fees and costs. (Code Civ.
FCS059061 - VACAVILLE USD VS HUNTER, DOMINQUE (DMS)
FCS059061
Jan 31, 2024
Solano County, CA
But the allegations against the two sets of attorneys are not identical, and the outcome of the anti-SLAPP motions thus could differ. It seems only fair to let the cross-defendant attorneys proceed with their anti-SLAPP motion, then whoever loses that motion can appeal, and the Court of Appeal then can decide as to all the anti-SLAPP rulings simultaneously. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.
BECK V. CATANZARITE, ET AL.
30-2020-01145998
Mar 12, 2021
Orange County, CA
On December 19, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Funabikiโs anti-SLAPP motion as to the entirety of the Complaint. As the prevailing party on his anti-SLAPP motion, Funabiki seeks his lodestar figure with a 2.0 multiplier for a total of $45,450 in attorneysโ fees. In opposition, Plaintiff merely argues that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been denied. This is irrelevant to the analysis at hand.
KS WORLD INC VS YUSUKE FUNABIKI
BC722741
Aug 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 31, 2020, Ortiz billed 2 hours for preparing proposed orders for the anti-SLAPP motion and the demurrer and filing the anti-SLAPP motion, demurrer and motion for sanctions. ( Ibid. ) The Court reduces this by $350.00. On October 14, 2020, Clark billed 0.8 hours for preparing replies for the anti-SLAPP motion and the demurrer. ( Ibid. ) The Court reduces this amount by $206.00.
PARADIGM INDUSTRIES VS A'S MATCH, ET AL.
20STCV10368
Feb 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Chan as follows: 9/26/17 PSC Multiple emails with client re: strategy on motion to quash service of summons; review and revise anti-SLAPP motion 2.3 [hours] 9/27/17 FXW Research and draft anti-SLAPP motion and supporting papers; investigate service issue; emails 9.5 [hours] 9/28/17 PSC Review and revise anti-SLAPP motion; email prior counsel re: transition items; emails with client re: settlement issues 3.0 [hours] 12/14/17 DIH 1.00 [hours] 565.00 [dollars] Emails re order on anti-SLAPP; call KK Lim re order
KARYS DALSOOK MA VS JOONG KUN AHN ET AL
BC625692
Jun 21, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Notice Of Special Anti-Slapp Motion And Anti-Slapp Motion Of Defendant Philip R. Cousin To Strike Plaintiffs Complaint SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2016, LINE 10 DEFENDANT PHILIP COUSIN'S Special Anti-Slapp Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Complaint Continued to May 19, 2016 to be heard at the same time as the other anti-SLAPP motion in this case. =302/HK
BOBBY SISK VS. ELEVATE INDEPENDENT SERVICES, INC. ET AL
CGC16550284
May 12, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
This motion is moot in light of the fact that Furey has filed his own anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Furthermore, there is evidence Furey wasn't properly served until 4/21/14, making the joinder timely. Liberty's anti-SLAPP MTS and Furey and McKinnor's joinders thereto (set for hearing on 6/11): Continue for 60-90 days to permit court to address plaintiff's motion for relief from discovery stay.
KOLAREK VS JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION
56-2014-00448230-CU-DF-VTA
Jun 11, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Defendants presently seek leave to take the deposition of Nadjibi in support of Defendantsโ Anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants also seek a continuance hearing date of the anti-SLAPP motion to allow sufficient time to use the Nadjibiโs testimony in their reply to the anti-SLAPP motion. Finally, they seek a continuance of the hearing date of the demurrer so that it occurs on the same date as the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion.
MARIA ORDONEZ ET AL VS AUTO FINANCE SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL
BC680259
Oct 15, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the anti-SLAPP, Shapiro argues that Plaintiffโs requested relief is wholly contrary to the spirit and purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute and the reason for why an amendment to a pleading is not allowed while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending. ( Simmons v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073.)
JEFFREY RUBIN VS CITY OF CALABASAS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV19874
Jan 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Fees in Connection with the Anti-SLAPP Motion Defendants seek attorneyโs fees $115,673 incurred in preparing the anti-SLAPP motion: $75,423 incurred in preparing the anti-SLAPP motion, and $40,250 incurred in bringing and defending motions and ex parte applications related to the anti-SLAPP motion. Exhibit B to the Declaration of Daniel R.
JAY KATO ET AL VS. BRUCE KATO ET AL
BC717065
Sep 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Request for Judicial Notice Defendants request judicial notice of the Anti-SLAPP motion and the Complaint filed in this action is granted. Judicial notice of court records is proper under Evid. Code ยง 452(d). Motion for leave for discovery As a general rule, discovery is stayed upon the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion. (CCP ยง 425.16(b). The trial court may still order that specified discovery be conducted โfor good cause shown,โ and continue the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. (Ibid.;Murray v.
TYE VS PAPP
CVRI2201719
Aug 11, 2022
Riverside County, CA
In addition, demurrers and anti-SLAPP are docketed differently on the Courtโs calendar and require separate filing fees. Defendant has failed to provide Plaintiff and the Court with proper notice of the purported anti-SLAPP motion. If Defendant wishes to file an anti-SLAPP motion, Defendant may do so as the rules permit, through a separate noticed motion. The anti-SLAPP motion is OFF CALENDAR.
RICH CENTER FOR PROSPERITY, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL. VS BRENDA MARSHALL
20STCV28710
Apr 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Defendants contend that JKC3H8 does not apply to moot Defendantsโ first anti-SLAPP motion because the anti-SLAPP motion was filed before Plaintiff filed the FAC.
CURTIS R. OLSON VS VIDALA AARONOFF, ET AL.
19STCV46503
Jul 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Therefore, the FACC was filed before the anti-SLAPP motion was filed. Further, the anti-SLAPP motion although directed towards the FACC moves to strike based on language that appears in the original Cross-Complaint but not in the FACC. Cross-Defendants filed the anti-SLAPP motion after the FACC was filed, therefore, when the anti-SLAPP motion was filed, the original Cross-Complaint ceased to have any effect as a pleading.
MACH V. LE
30-2018-01039033-CU-FR-CJC
Jan 16, 2020
Orange County, CA
On an anti-SLAPP motion the plaintiff need only demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing as to the second prong. Moreover, the anti-SLAPP motion was filed prior to the trial courtโs determination of the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the fact that the summary judgment motion was denied does not equate to a determination that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous or intended solely to cause delay.
NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES, LLC VS. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM
30-2013-00665314-CU-BC-CJC
Jul 19, 2018
Orange County, CA
On an anti-SLAPP motion the plaintiff need only demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing as to the second prong. Moreover, the anti-SLAPP motion was filed prior to the trial courtโs determination of the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the fact that the summary judgment motion was denied does not equate to a determination that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous or intended solely to cause delay.
NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES, LLC VS. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM
30-2013-00665314
Jul 19, 2018
Orange County, CA
It is worth noting that if a fee claim such as plaintiffsโ were viable, it would often raise the unseemly and awkward prospect of both sides recovering attorney fees on the same anti-SLAPP motion. That is not inevitably true, since an anti-SLAPP motion might be deemed frivolous in part but only unmeritorious in part. But where โ as here, and as in Gerbosi โ the anti-SLAPP motion is actually granted in part, the defendant would be entitled to recover fees for the successful motion. (Jackson v.
WIND VS. SHANE
MSC17-01709
Jun 29, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
โThe right to appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is important because it protects the interest validated by the anti-SLAPP statute.โ People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1318. The fact that the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize this important part of the ยง 425.16 statutory scheme in limited civil cases further supports this Courtโs determination that anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in such cases.
SALSEDA, JACK VS MOTORIST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
16K07465
Sep 21, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
In any case, there is no basis to deem the subject anti-SLAPP motion late to the extent (1) Defendant was only served with the FAC in August 2022; (2) Defendant filed an initial anti-SLAPP motion to the FAC in September 2022 that was set for October 20, 2022; (3) the Court then allowed leave to amend such that the SAC was filed on October 11, 2022, before the initial anti-SLAPP hearing; and (4) the subject anti-SLAPP motion was then promptly reasserted with respect to the SAC on November 1, 2022.
JOHN DOE VS BRITTANY UNDERWOOD, ET AL.
21STCV46709
May 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Brown moves in this motion for the court to award attorneyโs fees and costs in relation to his anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiffs oppose on several grounds to this motion, the first of which is that the motion should be stayed pending appeal of the anti-SLAPP motion.
STEVEN A. SUGARMAN, ET AL. VS HALLE BENETT, ET AL.
19STCV36697
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In Yang , the Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on merits of anti-SLAPP motion after voluntary dismissal of action. ( Yang , supra , 178 Cal.App 4th 869.) There, the plaintiff dismissed the case prior to the hearing on the defendants anti-SLAPP motion. ( Id. at p. 872873.) Nonetheless, the trial court ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion and held that the defendants were entitled to attorneys fees. ( Id. at p. 874.)
JOSE MENDOZA VS ROGER O. VEGA
23PSCV00650
Aug 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, because the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the underlying Anti-SLAPP Motion, Plaintiffโs Motion to Compel is DENIED. In addition, Defendantโs Anti-SLAPP Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. III. Conclusion & Order Plaintiff Nicole Parkโs Motion to Compel is DENIED. In addition, because the instant Motion is not permitted in this Court based on the foregoing authorities, Defendantโs Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP) scheduled to be heard on February 19, 2020 is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
NICOLE PARK VS MOON KYUNG KIM
19STLC05014
Jan 08, 2020
James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo
Los Angeles County, CA
Re: Lee Plaintiffs Motion to Fix Attorney's Fee Award for Successfully Opposing Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike 1. The Court's 5/20/12 minute order ruled that the Plaintiffs, Phillip and Alice Lee were entitled to attorney fees for successfully opposing what the Court viewed as a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Defendants. That anti-SLAPP ruling is now on appeal. 2.
PHILLIP LEE VS. HOWARD S ROSEN
56-2012-00414390-CU-NP-VTA
Jul 10, 2012
Ventura County, CA
Analysis: An anti-SLAPP motion must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint, or later in the courtโs discretion. (CCP ยง425.16(f).) An amended complaint does not re- open the time to file an anti-SLAPP unless the anti-SLAPP could not have been brought earlier. (Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, 645.)
MORALES VS CITY OF INDIO
RIC1803060
Oct 23, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Cohen (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 373, 385 [no anti-SLAPP fees where associate represented law firm for which she worked]; Taheri Law Group v. Evans (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 493 [self-represented attorney cannot collect fees under anti-SLAPP statute; attorney-client relationship must exist for the recovery of fees under anti-SLAPP statute]; Witte v.
WEST COAST ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE INC VS. LAW OFFICES OF MARK B PLUMMER PC
30-2020-01148635
May 10, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that Defendantsโ anti-SLAPP motion is untimely because it was filed 66 days after service of the summons and Complaint.
BRETT O'BRIEN, ET AL. VS JOHN GOULD
20STCV19892
Mar 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court rejects Plaintiff's contention that the anti-SLAPP motion ruling does not preclude the instant cause of action because it did not state that the sixteenth cause of action was dismissed without leave to amend. The anti-SLAPP statute makes no provision for leave to amend and the failure to specifically state that the anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed without leave to amend does not help Plaintiff.
CALVIN CHANG VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
34-2009-00033484-CU-OE-GDS
Mar 15, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Reasonable Hours In his motion, Torres seeks compensation for 51.4 hours of legal work expended or to be expended by counsel on anti-SLAPP matters in this action, comprised of: (1) 22.2 out of 31.9 hours expended by counsel to prepare the initial anti-SLAPP motion, with the 22.2 hours relating solely to the issues on which Torres prevailed in the anti-SLAPP motion; (2) 11 out of 16.2 hours expended by counsel to review Family Film Fund and Waesches opposition and prepare a reply in favor of the anti-SLAPP motion
22STCV11483
Jul 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
LEGAL STANDARD An anti-SLAPP motion may be filed within 60 days after the service of the complaint or an amended complaint, whichever is operative.ยฟ (CCP 425.16(f).)ยฟ An anti-SLAPP motion filed after 60 days may be permitted in the court's discretion upon terms it deems proper.ยฟ (CCP 425.16(f); Lam v.
STEPHEN XIANPENG LIU, ET AL. VS MICHAEL EDSON, ET AL.
22SMCV01164
Jun 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Since there is so much overlap between the anti-SLAPP motion and opposition to the election challenge (some entries even lump the two motions together โ i.e. โreview and analyze tentative ruling on anti-SLAPP and 7616 petition and conferenceโ), and given the minimal effect the ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion had on the litigation as a whole, an attorney fee award of $3,863 is fair.
WRIGHTSIL VS MISSION VILLAS RIVERSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
CVRI2100567
Dec 07, 2021
Riverside County, CA
We acknowledge the anti-SLAPP motion was filed less than two hours after the first amended complaint was filed, but this does not change the fact there was no pending anti- SLAPP motion at the time of the amendment. Accordingly, the anti-SLAPP motion in this case, 140 directed to a superseded complaint, was moot from the start. Nor do we believe this conclusion frustrates the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.
BURNEY V. ERB
PC-20200069
Jun 26, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
The Court of Appeal stated: โThere is no reason the new defendant should be able to avoid being added to the complaint simply because an existing defendant has an anti-SLAPP motion pending. On appeal, [the new defendant] argues only that the amendment โthreatened to moot [the existing defendantโs] anti-SLAPP motion challenging the initial complaint and to trigger the new round of anti-SLAPP litigation the statute is meant to prevent.โ
AWI BUILDERS INC ET AL VS ALLIANT CONSULTING INC ET AL
BC696666
Oct 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
At this time defendant Chawki has not presented evidence to support any award of attorneyโs fees and costs in relation to defendant Chawkiโs anti-SLAPP motion. 2) Defendant Kathleen Panganiban has taken her joinder in co-defendant Annette Chawkiโs anti-SLAPP motion off-calendar in light of plaintiff Millenniumโs dismissal of its complaint as to defendant Annette Chawki. (See, Notice of Anti-SLAPP Motion Off-Calendar filed 7-6-18.) 3) The case management conference remains on calendar.
MILLENNIUM CORPORATE SOLUTIONS, LLC VS. CHAWKI
30-2018-00978999-CU-DF-CJC
Jul 12, 2018
Orange County, CA
Given the fact that โ[t]he determination whether a party prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion lies within the broad discretion of a trial court,โ this court does not regard the language in the appellate opinion as signifying a holding regarding the anti-SLAPP motionโs substantive impact on the case. (Mann, supra, 139 Cal.app.4th at p. 340.) The trial court has already made some findings as to the efficacy of Lindeโs anti-SLAPP motion.
LAUREN KATTUAH VS THE LINDE LAW FIRM ET AL
BC545577
Mar 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Holsten has filed an appeal from the portion of the above ruling denying her anti-SLAPP motion in part. SMP has not filed any appeal or cross-appeal from the portion of the ruling granting the anti- SLAPP motion in part. The central issue on this motion is how to address an attorneyโs fees motion under ยง 425.16(c)(1) as applied to a mixed anti-SLAPP ruling that grants a motion to strike in part and denies it in part.
SMP CONSTRUCTION VS. HOLSTEN
C23-00943
Feb 22, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
The court notes that the billing entries mix time on the anti-SLAPP motion with other activities potentially unrelated to the motion, e.g., an unfiled demurrer and various status reports and other correspondence. There are redacted entries from which the court cannot determine whether the work was only relevant to the anti-SLAPP motion and, in this regard, the fee request is not adequately documented.
WILLIAMS VS NIEMANN
RG20050771
Dec 31, 2020
Alameda County, CA
The court notes that the billing entries mix time on the anti-SLAPP motion with other activities potentially unrelated to the motion, e.g., an unfiled demurrer and various status reports and other correspondence. There are redacted entries from which the court cannot determine whether the work was only relevant to the anti-SLAPP motion and, in this regard, the fee request is not adequately documented.
WILLIAMS VS NIEMANN
RG20050771
Dec 29, 2020
Alameda County, CA
Murphy, Case No. 20SMCV01448 Hearing Date December 2, 2021 Defendants Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP Motion) Plaintiffs are former clients of defendant Murphy Rosen, LLP. Plaintiffs allege defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to disclose an existing conflict of interest. Defendants filed a special motion to strike (Cal. Civ. Code ยง425.16/anti-SLAPP motion). Courts resolving an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Code ยง425.16 follow a two-step process.
SHAHRAM ELYASZADEH, ET AL. VS PAUL D. MURPHY, ET AL.
20SMCV01448
Dec 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Maxon argues that the anti-SLAPP motion would be improper even under Baral. (Reply at pp. 2โ4.) Specifically, Maxon argues that although Baral recognizes that an anti-SLAPP motion may be directed at a portion of a โmixed cause of action,โ Waltco nevertheless attempted to strike the entire second cause of action, which is not authorized under any case law. However, the court in Baral held that โthe Mann rule permits artful pleading to evade the reach of the anti-SLAPP statute.
MAXON INDUSTRIES INC VS WALTCO LIFT CORP
BC609323
Oct 31, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Since the first prong of the anti-SLAPP lawsuit has been met, Candace and Anthony bear the burden of proving the likelihood of success on the merits. Rusheen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at 1056. โIt bears emphasis that a plaintiffโs burden at the second anti-SLAPP step is a low one, requiring only a showing that a cause of action has at least a โminimal merit within the meaning of the anti- SLAPP statute.โโ Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 793.
DAY VS IWAMI
CVRI2102546
Nov 18, 2021
Riverside County, CA
(Anti-SLAPP Opposition, Ex. D.) Two hours later, at 4:10 p.m., Bleckman filed her anti-SLAPP motion. On February 13, 2020, Bleckman also filed a demurrer. Bleckman does not contest these facts. The anti-SLAPP motion and demurrer are unnecessary and a waste of time and resources. Katzenbach never served the cross-complaint and had decided not to serve it, and so there was no reason for Bleckman proactively to accept service.
GAIL BLECKMAN VS RYAN KATZENBACH, ET AL.
19STLC01640
Sep 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
It is not disputed that defendant, as the prevailing party on the Anti-SLAPP motion, is entitled to fees reasonably incurred on the Anti-SLAPP and fee motions. Based on the summary of fees provided in the declaration of counsel, the Court finds that fees incurred prior to the filing of the Anti-SLAPP are most likely fees related broadly to the prosecution of the litigation as a whole and not specifically to the Anti-SLAPP motion. The Court excludes $10,050 in fees.
FOLEY VS MCELROY
37-2019-00048285-CU-DF-CTL
Sep 16, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
โThe right to appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is important because it protects the interest validated by the anti-SLAPP statute.โ People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1318. The fact that the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize this important part of the ยง 425.16 statutory scheme in limited civil cases further supports this Courtโs determination that anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in such cases.
AIRDRAULICS INC VS SUPERIOR INSPECTIONS & LEAK
17K00784
May 16, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
โThe right to appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is important because it protects the interest validated by the anti-SLAPP statute.โ People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1318. The fact that the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize this important part of the ยง 425.16 statutory scheme in limited civil cases further supports this Courtโs determination that anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in such cases.
SIMONI, PAYMAN M D VS SAM M
16K15565
Apr 10, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
As prevailing anti-SLAPP defendants, Defendants are entitled to an award for fees incurred on and in connection with their anti-SLAPP motion. (Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-22.) Because the successful motion was directed at the entire complaint and all the motions filed were in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion, virtually all of Defendantsโ fees were incurred in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion.
ALAN V. BUENA PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
30-2016-00841283-CU-PN-CJC
Oct 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
โThe right to appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is important because it protects the interest validated by the anti-SLAPP statute.โ People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1318. The fact that the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize this important part of the ยง 425.16 statutory scheme in limited civil cases further supports this Courtโs determination that anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in such cases.
SIMONI M D, PAYMAN VS CRISTINA L H
16K14524
Apr 10, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
โThe right to appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is important because it protects the interest validated by the anti-SLAPP statute.โ People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1318. The fact that the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize this important part of the ยง 425.16 statutory scheme in limited civil cases further supports this Courtโs determination that anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in such cases.
VALENTINE, GARY VS BAHLO NEE GROUP INC
17K00897
Jun 19, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
โThe right to appeal a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is important because it protects the interest validated by the anti-SLAPP statute.โ People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1318. The fact that the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize this important part of the ยง 425.16 statutory scheme in limited civil cases further supports this Courtโs determination that anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in such cases.
ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALISTS OF SOUTHERN VS BENNETT, DUSK
15K11094
Aug 16, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Defendants claim to be entitled to attorneyโs fees as the โprevailing partyโ on their Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) certain allegations in Plaintiff Ronald J. Freitaโs (โPlaintiffโ) Second Amended Complaint (โSACโ).
RONALD J FREITAS VS TORI VERBER SALAZAR ET AL.
STK-CV-UOE-2019-0008253
Nov 13, 2020
David B. Flinn
San Joaquin County, CA
Additionally, Plaintiffโs opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion was essentially non-responsive to the Defendantโs arguments in her memorandum of points and authorities. In conclusion, the Court will award Defendant $10,885 in attorneysโ fees as the prevailing party on her anti-SLAPP motion. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
SHAHIDEH KHODADADI VS POOPAK KHOSROWSHAHI
BC671233
Mar 16, 2018
Holly J. Fujie or Michael M. Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
In the Reply, Defendant contends that it worked a reasonable amount of hours on its Anti-SLAPP motion and motion for attorneyโs fees; it is entitled to fees for the anti-SLAPP motion, the hourly rates are not unreasonable, and its reliance on the Laffey Matrix is not improper. Anti-SLAPP A special motion to strike (an โanti-SLAPPโ motion) provides a procedural remedy to dismiss non- meritorious litigation meant to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights to petition or engage in free speech.
BAKER VS DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CVPS2300933
Dec 17, 2023
Riverside County, CA
In the Reply, Defendant contends that it worked a reasonable amount of hours on its Anti-SLAPP motion and motion for attorneyโs fees; it is entitled to fees for the anti-SLAPP motion, the hourly rates are not unreasonable, and its reliance on the Laffey Matrix is not improper. Anti-SLAPP A special motion to strike (an โanti-SLAPPโ motion) provides a procedural remedy to dismiss non- meritorious litigation meant to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights to petition or engage in free speech.
BAKER VS DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CVPS2300933
Dec 16, 2023
Riverside County, CA
In the Reply, Defendant contends that it worked a reasonable amount of hours on its Anti-SLAPP motion and motion for attorneyโs fees; it is entitled to fees for the anti-SLAPP motion, the hourly rates are not unreasonable, and its reliance on the Laffey Matrix is not improper. Anti-SLAPP A special motion to strike (an โanti-SLAPPโ motion) provides a procedural remedy to dismiss non- meritorious litigation meant to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights to petition or engage in free speech.
BAKER VS DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CVPS2300933
Dec 18, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Thus, the Court cannot state that any reasonable attorney would believe that an anti-SLAPP motion to strike was completely devoid of all merit. In addition, the Court notes that Cross-Complainant fails to establish that the anti-SLAPP motion to strike was filed solely to delay. Cross-Complainant makes reference to the fact that Cross-Defendantโs counsel stated that Cross-Complainant should simply amend the Cross-Complaint rather than opposing the Anti-SLAPP motion. (Decl., Jessica C. Wright, ยถ 2.)
THE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION VS KELLY FORMERLY KNOWN AS KELLY V. BROWN CHARLES, ET AL.
19TRCV00883
May 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Respondentโs Evidence[3] On August 25, 2020, Medina sent Cook an e-mail directing him to review the state law surrounding anti-SLAPP motions, as the statute places a hold on discovery until the resolution of any filed anti-SLAPP motions. Medina Decl., ยถ2, Ex. A. Medina never at any point stated that the purpose of the Cityโs anti-SLAPP motion was to stall discovery in the matter. Medina Decl., ยถ3. D. Analysis 1.
JOHN RIOS VS CITY OF BALDWINPARK
19STCP05465
Nov 19, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
In addition, Defendantsโ explanation for their delay in filing an anti-SLAPP motion is that Defendants substituted new counsel on October 13, 2020, and that the Anti-SLAPP Motion was filed soon after this substitution. (Dugdale Decl., ยถ 2.) Defendants point out that trial is currently scheduled for October 13, 2021, and therefore, considering the Anti-SLAPP Motion on its merits would not frustrate the anti-SLAPP statuteโs purpose of disposing of improper lawsuits in the early stages.
BRETT O'BRIEN, ET AL. VS JOHN GOULD
20STCV19892
Jan 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion Deeming Anti-SLAPP Motion Filed and Served/Extending Deadline Motion to Deem Anti-SLAPP Timely Defendants Alan Brochstein and NCV Media, LLC seek an order deeming their Special Motion to Strike timely filed on July 1, 2021 โor, in the alternative, extending the sixty (60) day filing deadline set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 415.16(f) to allow for the timely filing of the Anti-SLAPP Motionโฆโ The hearing was continued from October 1, 2021, so that the parties could fully brief the issue.
BECK VS. BROCHSTEIN
2021-01201101
Nov 05, 2021
Orange County, CA
Proc. 425.16(G) ("Anti-Slapp") Set for hearing on Thursday, March 1, 2018, Line 15, PLAINTIFF KAZUKO ARTUS' Motion For Leave To Conduct Specified Discovery Pending Defendant's Motion To Strike Pursuant To Code Civ. Proc. 425.16(G) ("Anti-Slapp"). Plaintiff Kazuko Artus' motion for leave to conduct specified discovery pending defendant Gramercy Towers Condominium Association's anti-SLAPP motion to strike is denied. Dr.
KAZUKO K. ARTUS VS. GRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ET AL
CGC17561765
Mar 01, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Motion For Reconsideration Of Ruling On Anti-Slapp Motion And/Or Renewal Of Anti-Slapp Motion Matter on calendar for Wednesday, January 14, 2015, Line 9, DEFENDANT VINAY PATEL Motion For Reconsideration Of Ruling On Anti-Slapp Motion And/Or Renewal Of Anti-Slapp Motion. The matter is continued to January 29, 2015 to be heard by Judge Goldsmith.
PRAVIN PATEL ET AL VS. SHARAD SHANTILAL PATEL ET AL
CGC13535787
Jan 14, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
On December 10, 2020, the Court (Judge David Cowan) denied an anti-SLAPP motion filed by Defendants Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP, Jeffrey Riffer, and Julie Kimball. The Court found that Defendants had failed to meet their burden on the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis to show that Plaintiffs claims arose from protected activity. On November 28, 2021, the Court of Appeal affirmed this Courts ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion. (See Urick v.
DANA URICK, ET AL. VS ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE, LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.
20STCV17462
Aug 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffโs argument that granting the anti-SLAPP motion effectively voids the partiesโ settlement fails. Plaintiff also argues this is not a โproperโ anti-SLAPP motion because it is not based on โspeechโ in connection with a public issue. The anti-SLAPP statute does simply protect the right to free speech, but also the right to petition the government. Louis G. Navellier v. Kenneth G. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89.
WEST COAST LABORATORIES, INC., A CORPORATION VS ALAN ELIAS SHAD
19SMCV01655
Aug 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In any event, to resolve that question requires digging deep into the merits of the anti-SLAPP motion. Right now, this Court is only concerned with the merits of the application to late-file the anti-SLAPP motion. Although a Court is to consider the merits of the proposed anti-SLAPP motion in deciding whether to permit its late-filing, that is as a cursory review and not the in-depth analysis that goes along with a ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion.
PADILLA V. WECOSIGN, INC.
30-2012-00553004-CU-BC-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
On 9/9/16, Defendants filed a special motion to strike pursuant to CCP ยง 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The demurrer and anti-SLAPP motion are set for hearing on 11/23/16, along with an all-purpose status conference and continued ex parte applications to seal and to compel return of materials. Trial is set for 4/10/17 and FSC for 3/30/17. 1.) Seal โ The State Bar seeks to seal certain confidential materials submitted by Oehler in opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion.
SONJA OEHLER VS THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
BC610699
Nov 23, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Supreme Court adopted this "bright line" rule even though the defendant may incur legal fees and expenses in preparing an anti-SLAPP motion before the voluntary dismissal of the action. Id. at 382-383. The Ayalas argue that Shaffers are not entitled to fees because the challenged claims were dismissed before the anti-SLAPP motion was filed. As noted, the Ayalas timely filed a request for dismissal, but the dismissal was not entered until after the anti-SLAPP motion was filed.
JAMES D SHAFFER TRUSTEE OF THE SHAFFER FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 15 2000 VS RALPH G AYALA JR TRUSTEE OF THE RALPH G AYALA JR FAMILY TRUST
37-2018-00043704-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 21, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff opposes the fee motion on the grounds that the fees sought are excessive because the Anti-SLAPP Motion is substantially similar to the anti-SLAPP motion that Defendant filed earlier in this case as well as another anti-SLAPP motion filed by the same defense counsel in another case against Mega Bank captioned Wu v. Mega Bank (LASC No. 22AHCV00376). Plaintiff does not take issue with the amount Defendant requests for preparing this fee motion (9.5 hours x $600/hour).
STEPHEN LU VS EDWARD LO, ET AL.
22AHCV00317
Jun 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
As an initial matter, the Court notes that CCP ยง 425.18 is inapplicable here because the anti-SLAPP motions have not yet been resolved, and no SLAPPback action was filed. Thus, Defendantsโ requests to continue Plaintiffโs anti-SLAPP motions pursuant to CCP ยง 425.18(e) are denied. However, on the Courtโs own motion, Plaintiffโs anti-SLAPP motions against Defendantsโ cross-complaints and FAXCs are taken off calendar and continued, respectively, as set forth below.
CITY OF DOWNEY VS MARTIN COLIN
VC067201
Sep 10, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Smith (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 265, 275, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial courtโs finding that an anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because it was โparticularly weakโ and โsimply quoted a few of the complaintโs allegations out of context and asserted the complaint was subject to the anti-SLAPP statute in an entirely conclusory manner.โ
CHANTEL KING VS FRANK CANKO ET AL
BC527897
Jan 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In this case, the court found the anti-SLAPP motion lacked merit given the application of the public interest exemption. Under Cal Code Civ Proc ยง 425.17(b), the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public.
ROBERTS VS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER
RIC1905897
Apr 27, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Her counsel indicates in his supplemental declaration that $2,629.50 is not recoverable because it is directly connected to the denied claims on the anti-SLAPP motion. Even with the elimination of the foregoing, the amount sought is still excessive for two motions (the anti-SLAPP motion and the motion for attorneyโs fees). In an anti-SLAPP motion, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing that the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute has been met. Rusheen v.
QUEZADA VS RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL
RIC2000729
Feb 17, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Reasonableness of Number of Hours Billed Alger took primary responsibility for preparing and arguing the anti-SLAPP motion. (Alger Decl. ยถ 6; Azar Decl. ยถ 4.) Alger requests $27,170 in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion. (Alger Decl. ยถ 9.) Alger reports that he spent 48 hours, or $31,200, preparing the anti-SLAPP moving papers, preparing a reply brief, and preparing for and arguing the motion. (Ibid.)
GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV18618
Dec 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Shaffers brought a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court ruled that the anti-SLAPP motion was moot because the challenged causes of action were voluntarily dismissed. ROA # 135. On November 25, 2019, the Court awarded the Shaffers attorney's fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. ROA # 149. The Ayalas filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the fee order.
JAMES D SHAFFER TRUSTEE OF THE SHAFFER FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 15 2000 VS RALPH G AYALA JR TRUSTEE OF THE RALPH G AYALA JR FAMILY TRUST
37-2018-00043704-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 06, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
And Notice Of Motion To Strike Df'S Untimely Anti-Slapp Motion And Request For Sanctions SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2007, LINE 13. PLAINTIFF MOLLY PETTIT'S Motion To Strike DEFENDANT'S Untimely Anti-SLAPP Motion And Request For Sanctions: THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED. THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION IS UNTIMELY AND DEFENDANT'S RATIONAL FOR THE DELAY IS UNTENABLE. DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED (C.C.P.
MOLLY PETTIT VS. ANITA MARGRILL ET AL
CGC07459506
Jul 12, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
โAlthough the anti-SLAPP statute does not specifically state it, a plaintiff whose complaint is stricken by a successful anti-SLAPP motion cannot try again with an amended complaint. There is no such thing as granting an anti-SLAPP motion with leave to amend.โ (Dickinson v. Cosby (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 676 (Dickinson).)
SELF CNTRD, LLC VS MINGSHU ZHAO, ET AL.
20STCV16988
Oct 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Further, attendance at the January 26, 2018 and the February 8, 2018 hearings was reasonably related to the anti-SLAPP motion in that the January 26, 2018, hearing pertained to supplemental briefing for the anti-SLAPP motion and the February 8, 2018 hearing was initially intended to be the anti-SLAPP motion hearing.
PROJECT X GROUP LLC VS PAUL CHOLODENKO ET AL
BC678301
Jun 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
โ[T]he Legislatureโs act is allowing an interlocutory appeal of the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is clearly tied to the fact that the statute contemplates that most such motions will be filed within 60 days of the filing of the complaint.โ [Citation.][ Thus, a โtrial court must be wary about freely granting a party the right to file an anti-SLAPP motion past the 60-day deadline.โ [Citation.]
PAKES VS. GILFORD
30-2019-01070630
Aug 26, 2020
Orange County, CA
On November 19, 2019, the Court granted Abernathy and Carsons special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion). On December 23, 2019, the Court granted Zuckermans special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion). On January 14, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the November 19, 2019 order granting Abernathy and Carsons anti-SLAPP motion.
MOHAMMAD RAHMANI NEJAD VS HOSSEIN F BERENJI, ET AL.
19STCV11880
Nov 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants would have been the prevailing party on the merits of the Anti-SLAPP motion but for Plaintiffs voluntary dismissal prior to the hearing on the Anti-SLAPP Motion. For Anti-SLAPP attorneys fees, there are three ways to request attorneys fees: request fees within the Anti-SLAPP motion; make a noticed motion for fees after the ruling on the Anti-SLAPP motion; or include the fee request in the cost bill. ( Catlin Insurance Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc.
ALEXANDER EVEREST VS ROBABEH AFSARI, ET AL.
22STCV18731
Dec 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As noted above, it was the intention of the Court at the November 29, 2022 hearing to accommodate Plaintiff and allow him additional time to file supplemental briefing to oppose the Anti-SLAPP motions made challenging the FAC and to decide the pending Anti-SLAPP motions after consideration of Plaintiffโs supplemental briefs and oral argument.
ANTONIO MEDINA VS MICROSOFT CORPORATION ET AL.
STK-CV-UD-2021-0011122
Nov 08, 2023
San Joaquin County, CA
Background On October 11, 2019, Buyer Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, and on February 7, 2020, this Court issued an order granting in part Buyer Defendants anti-SLAPP motion, permitting Buyer Defendants to move for attorneys fees and costs under C.C.P. ยง425.16. (2/7/20 Ruling.) On October 26, 2020, this Court granted Buyer Defendants motion for attorneys fees in the amount of $107,534.36, finding Buyer Defendants were the prevailing party on Buyer Defendants anti-SLAPP motion.
COFFEE + FOOD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS JEANNE LEONIAN, ET AL.
19STCV14497
Mar 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 11, 2021, Defendants Nissanoff and AOC filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike under CCP sec. 425.16, arguing the claims asserted lack merit and arose from protected activity. On March 30, 2021, the Court denied the Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike, finding the claims asserted did not arise from protected activity. On May 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorneyโs Fees. DISCUSSION Anti-SLAPP Procedure (CCP sec. 425.16) โResolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps.
LAKESIDE MEDICAL ORGANIZATION, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL. VS JONATHAN NISSANOFF, M.D., ET AL.
20STCV41811
Jul 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.