PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........Probability of Prevailing
32 Cards On This Topic:

Action based on D's counterclaims in prior, unrelated proceeding in federal court, arose from activity protected by CCP 425.16; remand required to see if Ps established probability of prevailing.

Restaurant's anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where Animal Legal Defense Fund showed a probability of prevailing on the claim that the restaurant unlawfully "sold" Foie Gras in violation of CA ban.

Interim adverse judgment rule precluded malicious prosecution action as trial ct.'s finding of bad faith after a bench trial in underlying action negated its prior ruling denying SJ.

Special motion to strike properly denied where P not only showed a probability of prevailing, but had in fact prevailed on its interpleader complaint.

Chiropractor did not establish probability of prevailing on defamation claim where common interest privilege of CC 47(c) protected claims investigator's statements to assistant of lawyer representing insurance claimants treated by P.

City Board members may strike mandate petition where Ps could not show probability of prevailing as members' actions at Bd. meeting arose out of 1st Amend. voting and legislative deliberative activities on an important public issue.

As therapist acting as reunification counselor in protracted F/L case showed a probability of prevailing on the merits of defamation C/A against H, order denying H's special motion to strike affirmed.

Denying D's special motion to strike libel claim proper where his Yelp review of building's owner contained some factual assertions, not mere opinion, and Ps submitted enough evidence to show a probability of prevailing.

Under 2d step of CCP 425.16 analysis, P did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claim for extortion as it was barred by the litigation privilege of CC §47(b).

Anti-SLAPP motion correctly denied as to cross-Ds where D submitted sufficient evidence to show the falsity of alleged slanderous statements for purposes of the anti-SLAPP motion; no privileges, and immunities applied.

D's anti-SLAPP motion properly granted where P's complaint arose from D's exercising her free speech by posting derogatory stmts about him on Internet Web sites and he could not show probability of prevailing.

As the request for judicial notice of minute order, facts of which court did not accept as true, was P's only evidence opposing anti-SLAPP motion, he did not carry his burden of production re likelihood he would prevail on the merits.

In lawsuit against attys from prior lawsuit, their anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted and they should be awarded fees and costs as prevailing parties.

Anti-SLAPP motion properly granted where cross-C failed to show probability of prevailing on abuse of process and unfair business practices C/As based on questions asked by cross-D's atty during depositions in another case.

Ps, whose names were used in draft of CSI episode, didn't show probability of prevailing on defamation and privacy invasion C/As where they didn't show a reasonable person would understand defamatory statements referred to them.

Denial of Ds' anti-SLAPP motion proper where statements in their press release and leaflets, accusing employer of mass employment termination based upon racist and ageist motivations, clearly constituted "provable fact."

Statements made by employer to EDD that psychotherapist/social worker was responsible for suicide of inmate she was counseling arose from employer's free speech exercise and P failed to then prove she could prevail on merits.

Where P fails to demonstrate allegedly defamatory statements are provably false factual assertions, which P must do to establish probability of prevailing on defamation claim, no good cause exists for discovery re actual malice.

As restaurant chain's action arose from Ds' filing Prop. 65 intent-to-sue notice, a protected activity, it was properly subject to Ds' motion to strike, but chain unable to show probability of prevailing.

Although breach of K C/A arose from protected activity, trial court properly denied Ds' anti-SLAPP motion where P showed probability of prevailing on claim.

Since abuse of process cross-complaint arose out of conduct protected by anti-SLAPP statute, and probability of success on merits was shown, it was not error to deny special motion to strike, even if a bit premature.

Motion to strike properly denied animal activist group as its statements furthering conspiracy not protected speech and more than sufficient evidence indicated research company could show probability of prevailing on its claims.

D's e-mail questioning financial condition of holding company, which was subject of public hearings and newspaper reports, concerned matter of public interest under CCP 425.16 (e)(4); P then failed to show probability of success.

Podiatrist's defamation suit against Chronicle and sports figures properly stricken under CCP 425.16 as statements in Chronicle article protected speech on public issue and P could not show he would prevail on merits.

D law firm's special motion to strike should have been granted where bankr. trustee's claims barred by unclean hands and P investors' claims barred by SOL and they did not establish likelihood of prevailing on claims.

D's special motion to strike complaint that she filed fraudulent WC claim properly granted where no probability her employer would prevail upon its fraud claim.

P's libel complaint against former lover for statements made in published letter during adoption proceedings arose from D's protected speech w/in scope of CCP 425.16 and P failed to establish probability of prevailing on claim.

Court properly granted Planned Parenthood's CCP 425.16 motion to strike where P did not meet burden of showing reasonable probability of prevailing on merits of injunctive relief claims.

D's free speech rights to protest adult strip club at mini-mall not violated by injunction; Ps' entitlement to injunction demonstrated it had reasonable probability of prevailing on merits.

Since product liability complaint not based on, and did not arise from protected commercial speech activity, burden never shifted to Ps to demonstrate probability of prevailing on claims.

Plaintiffs did not establish probability of prevailing on fraud or breach of contract claims as required by the second prong of CCP 425.16 test.

Special motion to strike appropriate where D met initial burden of showing P's action subject to anti-SLAPP statute, and P then failed to establish probability he would prevail in court.