1-25 of 382 results

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

Angela White (aka Blac Chyna) v. Robert Kardashian, et al. HEARING RE: LEAVE TO FILE ANTI-SLAPP SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: Court’s own motion RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Robert Kardashian, Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian and Kylie Jenner; Plaintiff Angela White S...

...Kardashian from going forward with production. On September 10, 2018, the Court set an OSC re: striking the special motion to strike. TENTATIVE RULING: The Court sets a further OSC re: striking the anti-SLAPP special motion to strike for November 28, 2018 at 8:30 A.M. The parties are ordered to submit by November 21, 2018 a brief setting forth a chart showing what allegations are being challenged by the an...

  • Hearing

    Nov 1, 2018

  • Type

    Contract - Tortious Interference (General Jurisdiction)

SONJA OEHLER VS THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

...Oehler Responding Party: Defendants The State Bar of California, Jayne Kim, Robert Hawley, and Craig Holden Tentative Ruling: Ex parte application is granted in part. A motion for leave to conduct anti-SLAPP discovery is specially set for hearing on 10/4/16. Plaintiff’s amended motion is due by 9/23/16 at noon; Defendants’ opposition is due by 9/28/16 at noon; and Plaintiff’s reply is due by 9/30/16 at n...

...to be promptly delivered to the Court. The 10/4/16 hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion and demurrer is advanced and vacated. The Court will set a new hearing date on 10/4/16 following ruling on the anti-SLAPP discovery motion. ________________________________________ On 2/17/16, Plaintiff Sonja Oehler filed this action against Defendants The State Bar of California, Jayne Kim, and Robert Hawley arising o...

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2016

  • Type

    Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)

PHILIP MERRITT ET AL VS A CECILIE BOYSEN ET AL

...Decision setting forth the factual and legal basis for granting or denying the Anti-SLAPP Motion.” (Opposition, p. 2: 15-16.) Given that this motion is for attorneys’ fees and a statement of decision on the anti-SLAPP motion itself was already provided, Plaintiffs’ request is denied. Motion Defendants seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $30,324.00. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that this motion should be den...

...remaining causes of action to be litigated. “[A] fee award is not required when the motion, though partially successful, was of no practical effect. [Citation.] [A] party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the motion. The determi...

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2019

  • Type

    Quiet Title (General Jurisdiction)

JAY KATO ET AL VS. BRUCE KATO ET AL

Jay Kato derivatively on behalf of Marutama Company, Inc. v. Bruce Kato, et al. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS RE: SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (ANTI-SLAPP) MOVING PARTY: Defendants Bruce Kato, Successor Trustee of the Kazuo Kato and Cherry Y. Kato Trust dated May 22, 29197 aka Bruce Kato, Successor Trustee of the Cherry Y. Kato Revocable Trust dated Fe...

...Inc. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is a derivative action regarding an intrafamily dispute over a company. Defendants move for attorneys’ fees and costs following their successful anti-SLAPP motion. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Bruce Kato, Successor Trustee of the Kazuo Kato and Cherry Y. Kato Trust dated May 22, 29197 aka Bruce Kato, Successor Trustee of the Cherry Y. Kato Revocable Tr...

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

  • Type

    Other Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) (General Jurisdiction)

MARTIN P MONTOYA VS. MELODY L GROVER

...action. ROA # 35. Grover then filed a first amended cross-complaint ("FAXC") which alleged, among other things, plaintiffs' breach of an Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement. Plaintiffs filed a second anti-SLAPP motion on May 8, 2018. ROA # 51. No opposition was filed. The Court tentatively granted the motion. ROA # 67. At the August 8 hearing, Grover said no opposition was filed because she intended to dismi...

...motion. Discussion A prevailing cross-defendant on a special motion to strike is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1). This includes a cross-defendant "whose anti-SLAPP motion was granted as to some causes of action but not others." Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1267. No fees may be awarded if ...

  • Hearing

    Dec 6, 2018

  • Type

    Professional Negligence

MARIA ORDONEZ ET AL VS AUTO FINANCE SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL

Defendants’ Motion to Permit Deposition of Farid Nadjibi and Continue Hearing Dates of Anti-SLAPP Motion and Demurrer is DENIED, in part, as to the request to take the deposition of Farid Nadjibi. There is no basis for this request since the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s new allegations made...

...the opposition, which appear nowhere in the complaint. The motion is GRANTED, in part, as to Defendants’ request to have the anti-SLAPP motion and demurrer heard on the same date. The hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion and demurrer, therefore, are advanced from December 17, 2018 and December 18, 2018, respectively, to _______________. Plaintiffs’ opposition to each having already been filed, Defendants’ reply...

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2018

  • Type

    Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)

LAUREN KATTUAH VS THE LINDE LAW FIRM ET AL

...following appeal and is therefore entitled to fees in the amount of $51,084.20. (Motion at p. 7.) Kattuah offers many arguments in response. She first argues that Linde is entitled to no fees because his anti-SLAPP motion is of no practical effect on the action. (Opposition at p. 11.) She further argues that Linde may not collect fees to pay to its counsel because Linde’s counsel previously represented Kattuah i...

...has no substantive effect on the case. In Moran v. Endres (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 955, the court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees where a defendant bringing an anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike an entire complaint succeeded only in dismissing an illusory claim for civil conspiracy. The court noted that civil conspiracy is not a substantive cause of action, and stated...

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2018

  • Type

    Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)

GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

...and that Plaintiff could not prevail on these causes of action to the extent that they were based on this protected activity. LEGAL STANDARD A special motion to strike under CCP section 425.16 — the anti-SLAPP statute — allows a defendant to seek early dismissal of a lawsuit that qualifies as a SLAPP, that is, a strategic lawsuit against public participation. (Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.Ap...

...1027, 1035.) With exceptions not applicable here, a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. (CCP § 425.16(c).) Under the anti-SLAPP statute, a defendant may recover attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the special motion to strike, not the entire suit. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39...

  • Hearing

    Dec 4, 2019

  • Type

    Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)

MACH V. LE

...Mach’s motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 for an order striking Cross-Complainants Heidi Mach and Danny Mach’s First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) is DENIED. “Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves two steps. First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the ...

... anti-SLAPP motion by amending the challenged complaint or cross-complaint in response to the motion.” (JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477-478.) In JKC3H8, the court of appeal held that an anti-SLAPP motion was rendered moot by the filing of a first amended complaint filed before defendants filed the anti-SLAPP motion because the amendment removed reference to defendant’s action of obtaining a tem...

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

KARYS DALSOOK MA VS JOONG KUN AHN ET AL

...Dalsook Ma (“Plaintiff”). Defendants now move for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, as the prevailing defendants on an anti-SLAPP motion, in the amount of $36,298. Plaintiff opposes. Discussion The anti-SLAPP statute provides that “in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” ((Code Civ. Pr...

...“the fees incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.” (Id. at p. 1141.) “It is well established that the amount of an attorney fee award under the anti-SLAPP statute is computed by the trial court in accordance with the familiar lodestar method.” ((569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 432 [internal q...

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2018

  • Type

    Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)

NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES, LLC VS. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM

...prevailing parties against the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Defendants Morris Cerullo World Evangelism and Roger Artz. First, by its plain language, CCP 425.16 (c)(1) appears to apply only to an entire anti-SLAPP motion. “If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevai...

...solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Plaintiffs fail to make the requisite showing that the entire motion was frivolous and they cite no case law to prove that they may prevail by showing that the anti-SLAPP motion was only partly frivolous, that is frivolous only as to two out of four causes of action. At page 1 of their motion, Plaintiffs merely assert that the motion was also frivolous as to the third ...

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES, LLC VS. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM

...prevailing parties against the anti-SLAPP motion filed by Defendants Morris Cerullo World Evangelism and Roger Artz. First, by its plain language, CCP 425.16 (c)(1) appears to apply only to an entire anti-SLAPP motion. “If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevai...

...solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Plaintiffs fail to make the requisite showing that the entire motion was frivolous and they cite no case law to prove that they may prevail by showing that the anti-SLAPP motion was only partly frivolous, that is frivolous only as to two out of four causes of action. At page 1 of their motion, Plaintiffs merely assert that the motion was also frivolous as to the third ...

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

ARIANA FOOD ENTERPRISES VS. TIWANA INVESTMENT

HEARING ON SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (Anti-SLAPP) FILED BY TIWANA INVESTMENT, INC., HARJINDER SINGH * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants Tiwana Investment, Inc. and Harjinder Singh’s (“Defendants”) special motion to strike the service mark infringeme...

...Contra Costa County. See Singh Decl., paragraph 5 and Exhibit A. PROCEDURAL ISSUE THE TIMELINESS OF DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP MOTION Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is untimely. 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. ...

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

CALVIN CHANG VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

...by an unknown supervisor or manager of the Regents. The allegations regarding the internet postings were incorporated into the sixteenth cause of action. In February 2010, the Court granted Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion as to the sixteenth cause of action and others. In November 2011, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend to add a twentieth cause of action for defamation against the Regents and defendant So...

...order granting the anti-SLAPP motion is res judicata and that Plaintiff should not be allowed to resurrect the cause of action. The Court agrees with Defendants. The February 2010 ruling granting the anti-SLAPP motion as to the sixteenth cause of action for defamation was an immediately appealable order. (CCP § 425.16(j)(1); Baharian-Mehr v. Smith (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 265, 270.) The order is binding upon t...

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2012

  • Type

    Other employment

EAGLE VS. COLE

...ATTORNEY FEES RELATED TO #14 Defendants Adam Rose and Defendant George Lopez (“Defendants”) bring a joint motion for attorney fees after prevailing on their anti-SLAPP motions. Defendants filed independent anti-SLAPP motions. [See ROA #17, #13]. However, Plaintiff Eagle responded with a joint opposition, and Defendants then filed a joint reply. Defendants were also represented by the same counsel. [See ROA #58, 65...

...Discrepancies The Court noted that Defendants initially asked for their fees within the anti-SLAPP motions, and the matter was deferred for a noticed motion. Judicial notice is taken of the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, the opposition, and reply. (Evid. Code § 452(d)). In comparing the information there, there are unexplained discrepancies in the numbers and hours claimed. Defendant Rose asked for $8,800 in ...

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2017

DEBRA LA GRANGE VS TINA TRAN

...R. Jeffrey Ward’s motion is granted in the amount of $24,315. However, there is a stay of execution pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal of the court’s May 17, 2016 ruling granting Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Counsel for Defendant to give notice. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an action for malicious prosecution and rel...

...matter, although Plaintiff has appealed the court’s May 17, 2016 ruling on Ward’s anti-SLAPP motion, the court retains jurisdiction to entertain a motion for attorney fees by the prevailing party on the anti-SLAPP motion. (Doe v. Luster (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 139, 144.) It is therefore appropriate for the court to rule on the present motion, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s request that the court stay consideratio...

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2016

  • Type

    Other Compl-not Tort or Complex (General Jurisdiction)

TAN VS. WONG

HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE WONG'S UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT FILED BY RUILIAN TAN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Ruilian Tan’s Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP) Consolidated Unlawful Detainer Complaint is denied as untimely. This case arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute. Plaintiff Ruilian Tan entered into a commercial lease agreement with Kwong Ching Wo...

...the matter was assigned Case No. C16-02040. It was eventually consolidated with Tan v. Chong [Wong], Contra Costa Case No. C14-02092. After a great deal of time and litigation, Ms. Tan now brings this anti-SLAPP to strike the Unlawful Detainer Complaint, formerly RS16-0235. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Ruilian Tan brings this special motion to strike, pursuant to CCP § 425.16, on the grounds that (1) the Unlawfu...

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2018

GOLDEN EAGLE LAND INVESTMENT LP VS. RANCHO SANTA FE ASSOCIATION

...Remittitur from the Court of Appeals was filed in this Court on March 16, 2018, and, as a result of that Remittitur, all of Plaintiffs' causes of action were to be stricken from the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. (CCP § 425.16.) The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to this Court as follows: "we remand the matter for further appropriate proceedings in which an appropriate application for attorne...

...Code § 1717.) Instead, the parties wage their dispute on two substantive fronts: first, and primarily, the parties dispute whether this case is governed by the attorney fees provision provided in the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16(c) or by the attorney fees provision provided in the Open Meeting Act (Civil Code § 4955); second, the parties dispute whether the attorney fees sought are reasonable. The Court...

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Type

    Other Real Property

BERTAIN VS. HANNAN

Tentative Ruling on Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike: This action alleging causes of action for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress was originally filed by plaintiff Cherise Bertai...

...was filed setting a hearing date of July of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The discovery motion hearing date was subsequently vacated, due to the stay of discovery that occurs during the pendency of an anti-SLAPP motion. See Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(g). Factual Background: The action relates to an employer-employee relationship that turned sour and ultimately resulted in criminal proceedings. Defendant owns an...

  • Hearing

    Jul 2, 2018

  • Type

    PERSONAL INJURY OTHER

HERNANDEZ VS VIRUENA

...jointly as to Victor Virueña and Attorney Rogelio Morales. Cost of $800.70 jointly as to Hispano Services, Inc., Victor Virueña and Attorney Rogelio Morales. Defendant Hispano Services, Inc. filed an Anti-SLAPP motion, which this court heard and denied on December 28, 2016 after taking judicial notice of the fact that the public records of the California Secretary of State’s website indicated that Hispano Se...

...Inc. Prior to the court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, this court heard and granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike the antii-SLAPP motion on November 14, 2018. Plaintiff’s ex parte application to strike the anti-SLAPP motion was that the motion was untimely and lacked merit pursuant to §425.17(c). The court ruled that the motion was filed more than 60 days after service of the complaint and there was no request tha...

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2018

WIND VS. SHANE

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY JOHN WIND, SHIVA NIAZI * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Shane brought an anti-SLAPP motion against the entire complaint in this case, as well as against particular causes of action in it. The Court granted that motion as to one cause of action, as well as against allegations of certa...

...view those contentions as frivolous. Having secured a ruling that defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous in part, plaintiffs now bring the present motion for attorney fees under subd. (c)(1) of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c)(1): “If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reas...

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2018

JOHN PARK V. PETER V. LUNARDI, III, ET AL.

...plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subds. (a) & (b)(1).) “Consistent with the statutory scheme, ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step procedure. First, the moving defendant must identify ‘all allegations of protected activity’ and show that the challenged claim arises from that activity. [Citations.] Secon...

...matter, Park argues that the special motion to strike should be denied as it was untimely filed. (See OPP at pp. 8-9.) Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 contains a timeliness standard for bringing an anti-SLAPP motion. “The special motion may be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint, or in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the...

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2018

WILFREDO AGUILAR VS WILLIAM GRIFFITHS JR ET AL

...law and motion and discovery propounded. Needless to say, the purpose of the anti-SLAPP motion—to resolve a case promptly and inexpensively—will have been thwarted if Defendants could have brought an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike at an earlier stage of the litigation, that is, as to earlier versions of the operative complaint. That is especially true where, as here, the challenged allegations are virtu...

...the Court of Appeal. Section 425.16 provides a means for the prompt and relatively inexpensive resolution of lawsuits that threaten free speech. But it also “present[s] the possibility for abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 772, 783 [83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 95].) “All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made ...

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

  • Type

    Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)

CHANTEL KING VS FRANK CANKO ET AL

chantel king VS. frank canko, ET AL.; BC527897, January 25, 2018 [tentative] order re: Defendant Frank Canko’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Opposing Plaintiff’s Frivolous Anti-SLAPP Motion and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Incurred in Overturning the Ruling on That Motion on Appeal Pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c) is DENIED. Discussion Section 425.16, subdivisio...

...‘reference to section 128.5 in section 425.16, subdivision (c) means a court must use the procedures and apply the substantive standards of section 128.5 in deciding whether to award attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.’ [Citation.]” (Moore v. Shaw (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 182, 199.) Frivolous means “totally and completely without merit,” or “for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code Civ. Pr...

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2018

  • Type

    Securities Litigation Case (General Jurisdiction)

MATTHEW DABABNEH VS. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

...has notified the other side of Its intention to appear. Respondents California State Assembly, et al. (Respondents or Assembly) bring a special motion to strike the petition, pursuant to the "anti-SLAPP" statute, Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16. But the Assembly seeks an overbroad application of the anti-SLAPP statute. Because the heart of Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mand...

...targets conduct alleged to be a deprivation of procedural due process, not Respondents' right to petition or free speech under the United States Constitution orthe California Constitution, the anti-SLAPP motion to strike is denied. a. Background. Petitioner served as an assemblyman in the California Assembly from January 2014 to January 2018. (Petition, ^1.) In December 20...

  • Hearing

    Mar 1, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.