PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Motion to Strike
......Special Motion to Strike
.........Protected Activity
24 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.

D's frivolous special motion to strike denied where unlawful detainer clearly arose out of D's unprotected activity in not paying rent, not out of its protected petitioning activity in filing a prior lawsuit against landlord.

CCP 425.16 is generally inapplicable to claims seeking to impose liability based on atty's violation of Rules Prof. Conduct conflict of interest rules or other attorney actions taken on a client's behalf.

D's anti-SLAPP motion properly denied where his false, libelous and harassing statements about a fellow academic's work did not concern important public interests nor arise from protected activity.

Pastor acting as religious expert was not a limited purpose public figure for purpose of defamation claims and strike motion as he did not thrust himself into a public controversy about child abuse, child molestation, tax evasion or theft.

Peace officer's execution of a warrant is not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute; it is not an exercise of rights by the officer, but the performance of a mandatory duty, at the court's direction.

Because law firm's withdrawal of settlement funds w/out insurer's consent was neither communicative nor related to an issue of public interest, firm's anti-SLAPP motion properly denied.

Special motion to strike reversed as none of P's C/As arose from D's filing of termination notice or unlawful detainer, but from conduct by D that occurred during P’s tenancy or in connection with its termination.

Declaratory relief action filed in response to attorney's letters threatening litigation over a contract dispute does not come within the provisions of CCP §425.16.

Error to grant D's special motion to strike where Ps' conversion and fraudulent conveyance C/As did not arise out of D's settlement of litigation, and thus was not protected activity.

As paper's refusal to take comments concerning P from its website arose from its acts in furtherance of its free speech rights, its anti-SLAPP motion properly granted.

Attys' motion to dismiss per CCP 425.16 should have been granted where their only connection to Ps’ claims stemmed from their representation of bank in unlawful detainer actions; protected and unprotected activity.

In anti-SLAPP case, trial ct. properly struck the allegations in X-complaint that attacked the protected activity and allowed the unprotected theories to remain.

Error to grant Ds' special motion to strike where gravamen of P's action was allegation Ds wrongfully bought P's confidential documents, which was not an act by Ds in furtherance of their right of petition or free speech.

Deputy sheriff's C/A against ex-W, alleging stmts she made to internal affairs breached settlement agrmt., should have been stricken where her actions were based on protected activity and litigation privilege applied.

Anti-SLAPP motion reversed where 3-day notice to quit might have been the trigger, but the complaint was actually based on an underlying dispute over repair and maintenance obligations under a sublease and other unprotected activities.

Under Benasra, Freeman, and their progeny, an attorney's breach of fiduciary duties owed to a current or former client does not constitute protected speech or petitioning within the meaning of CCP 425.16.

Homeowners' special motion to strike slander of title complaint properly granted where their recording of lis pendens was protected and no probability of Ps prevailing—forged deed of trust void and CC 47(b) privilege applied.

As Ds accused of filing false claims and capping did not make prima facie showing that their conduct arose from protected acts of petitioning or speech, anti-SLAPP statute did not apply.

Error to deny CBS's anti-SLAPP motion where P acted as a public official for purposes of defamation law and failed to show CBS's report was made with actual malice.

Orders striking P's cross-complaint against attys. for equitable indemnity reversed where claim was essentially for atty. malpractice and thus did not involve activity protected by anti-SLAPP statute.

As the gravamen of P’s complaint for wrongful removal from board of nonprofit foundation did not implicate protected activity, order granting foundation's special motion to strike was reversed.

Ex-employee's anti-SLAPP motion improperly denied where his Craigslist postings about Bank arose from act in furtherance of free speech right re "issue of public interest" and Bank did not show probability of success.

Candidate's statements about P were protected activity where made in a public forum at a HOA's annual meeting and concerned an issue of public interest — qualifications of a candidate for office.