PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........CCP 425.17
 12 Cards On This Topic:
  • 2003 Legislative findings on abuse of CCP 425.16; actions exempt.
  • Company's complaint based on an attorney's ad re company's defective screws was not exempt from anti-SLAPP law by CCP 425.17(c) exception.
  • CCP 425.17(b) exception not applicable where Ps' suit did not seek relief solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public.
  • Trial court correctly denied Ds' anti-SLAPP motion as Ps' alleged false Internet ads constituted purely commercial speech and Ps met their burden of showing the commercial speech exemption of CCP 425.17 applied.
  • Error to grant Yelp’s special motion to strike restaurant owner's complaint as the commercial speech exemption of section 425.17(c) applies to Yelp’s statements concerning the accuracy and efficacy of its review filter.
  • Court erred in denying D's anti-SLAPP motion; CCP 425.17 (c) did not bar the motion as stmts in monograph D published were not about D's business nor Ps', but discussed the product of a drug manufacturer.
  • Because of fundamental right of a client to choose and change his legal representation, commercial speech exemption from the anti-SLAPP statute may not be applied to lawyer's activity.
  • Trial court correctly concluded it was obligated to resolve the merits of D's CCP 425.16 special motion to strike; CCP 425.17 (c) exceptions did not apply.
  • When special motion to strike is denied on grounds class action is exempt per CCP 425.17 (b), immediate appeal right in sections CCP 425.16 (j) and CCP 904.1 (a)(13) is inapplicable and appeal properly dismissed.
  • UCL claim of Ps who received DIRECTV demand letters to stop using pirating devices was not brought in "public interest" and not entitled to CCP 425.17 (b) protection from special motion to strike.
  • Order granting Tyson Foods' CCP 425.16 motion to strike reversed where predicated on a statutory power of dismissal extinguished during the pendency of the appeal by enactment of CCP 425.17.
  • As P's individual claims did not arise from CCP 425.16 (e) protected activity, burden never shifted to her to demonstrate probability she would prevail on them; CCP 425.17 applied to unfair practices claim.


    •