PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........SLAPP Statute Inapplicable
24 Cards On This Topic:

Where former atty became involved in a campaign to thwart former client's RE project, client's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of K had at least minimal merit per anti-SLAPP statute.

Property dispute between local and general church not subject to anti-SLAPP motion where actual dispute concerned property ownership rather than protected activity.

CSC's former decision affirming Court of Appeal's holding church property dispute was not a SLAPP suit did not mean the actions were finally decided—remand required to address remaining issues.

Denial of Ps' CCP 425.16 mtn. re breach of K claim proper where it did not arise from protected activity; mtn. properly granted as to breach of implied covenant of GF and FD where based on protected petitioning activity.

Because W's act of making a false police report against H was not in furtherance of her constitutional rights of petition or free speech, anti-SLAPP statute does not protect her against H's civil suit.

P's wiretapping and privacy invasion allegations did not "arise from" any protected activity by D on behalf of P where P was a stranger to the litigation between his wiretapped next-door neighbor and her ex-boyfriend.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where complaint did not arise from protected activity, but from a business dispute between the parties, and mention of any protected activity was merely incidental.

Student's web site message threatening another student b/c of his perceived sexual orientation was not protected by CCP 425.16 where lawsuit did not arise out of a statement made in connection with a “public issue.”

Not every mundane communication between HOA and homeowner gives rise to freedom of speech issue; CCP 425.16 (e)(4) does not come into play unless the right of free speech or the right to petition is involved.

Where negotiation of settlement agreement in prior case is an act in furtherance of right to petition, D atty's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted.

Filing a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under U.S. or CA Constitutions so as to implicate anti-SLAPP statute.

Special motion to strike reversed where tenant's unlawful eviction claim did not arise from protected free speech activity, but was based on D landlord's violation of rent control laws.

Anti-SLAPP statute does not apply where protected activity is only incidental to atty conflict of interest C/A.

CCP 425.16 does not protect act of initiating private, K arbitration—statute protects statements made in, or re issues under review by, a judicial or other official proceeding—private, K arbitration is neither.

D atty's anti-SLAPP motion invalid where he threatened to file State Bar complaint against P if P didn't sign settlement, an act of extortion.

Where evidence at CCP 425.16 motion enables P to show probability of prevailing on defamation claim, policy concerns against amendment in this context do not apply because P's suit, likely meritorious, is not a SLAPP suit.

As even the broadest interpretation of the plain language of CCP 425.16 cannot stretch it to cover request for a subpoena, superior court erred in granting Does’ 425.16 motion and in awarding attorney’s fees.

Trial court correctly found that nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, including the notice of foreclosure, were not constitutionally protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Terminating a tenancy or removing a property from the rental market are not activities taken in furtherance of the constitutional rights of petition or free speech for CCP 425.16 purposes.

SLAPP statute does not apply where it is the prayer for an injunction, not a cause of action, which arises from an act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech.

City's action seeking declaration that Ds' proposed initiative was invalid as not a proper subject for local initiative, was not directed at protected conduct and Ds' CCP 425.16 motion should not have been granted.

CCP 425.16 does not apply to Ps' C/As against attorney for breach of K, professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

Error to grant special mtn to strike where C/As based on allegations about manner in which private RE transactions conducted, and governmental permit app's were only incidental to principal purposes of the transactions.

Trial court properly denied Ds' CCP 425.16 motion where complaint arose from "fact" of law firm's dual representation of Ps and adversary and not from any protected litigation-related activity.