- L.A. Taxi Coop. v. Indep. Taxi Owners Ass’n of L.A.
(2015, 2d District – 239 Cal.App.4th 918, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 579) -
L.G. v. M.B.
(2018, 2d District – 25 Cal.App.5th 211, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 494) - La Jolla Group II v. Bruce
(2012, 5th District – 211 Cal.App.4th 461, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 716) - Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co. (“Morehouse I”)
(1995, 1st District – 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46) - A university offering a Ph.D. in “sensuality” sued a newspaper for libel for a series of articles on the university in relation to hearings by the county board of supervisors on whether the university was violating local health, land use, and other government regulations, and a suit by the county to enjoin alleged violations. The lower court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
- Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co. (“Morehouse II”)
(1995, 1st District – 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 542) - A defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike a complaint is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs only for work related to the motion, not for work unrelated to the motion. [Note: This opinion was issued before the 1997 amendment of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, requiring that the anti-SLAPP statute be construed broadly, and before the Supreme Court decision in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, which held that courts, “wherever possible, should interpret the First Amendment in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom of speech, not to its curtailment.”]
- Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University
(2019, 6th District – 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 244 Cal.Rptr.3d 238) - Lam v. Ngo
(2001, 4th District – 91 Cal.App.4th 832, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 582) - Vietnamese-Americans demonstrated against the display of North Vietnam’s flag in a store window. One group focused attention on a city councilman, Lam, who was perceived to be indifferent. Lam owned a restaurant, where demonstrators gathered. After the restaurant’s landlord, Ngo, allowed the demonstrators to gather in the parking lot, restaurant and patron property was intentionally damaged. Lam sued Ngo and 1,500 “Doe” demonstrators for damages and obtained a TRO, later a preliminary injunction, against the demonstrators. Ngo filed a motion to strike the complaint against him pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Ngo had already lost in the contest over the preliminary injunction and had not presented anything “new.” The appellate court reverses. Held: the granting of the preliminary injunction did not have the effect of res judicata with respect to the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Moreover, Lam could not be held personally liable for acts committed by others absent evidence that he authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious acts, incited lawless action, or gave specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats, and no such evidence was presented to counter the anti-SLAPP motion. Nevertheless, violent acts associated with the protest are not protected by the First Amendment and do support tort liability, and thus the case is remanded to allow the plaintiff to substitute named individuals who can be shown to have engaged in tortious acts.
- Lanz v. Goldstone
(2015, 1st District – 243 Cal.App.4th 441, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 227) - Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang
(2009, 2d District – 178 Cal.App,4th 869, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 771) - Lee v. Fick
(2005, 2d District -135 Cal.App.4th 89, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 375) - Plaintiff high school athletic coach filed a lawsuit for libel, slander, and other causes of action for statements defendant parents made in a letter to the school board, oral statements defendants made to other parents, and oral statements made to the school board while requesting that it reconsider its decision to retain the coach. The trial court granted defendants anti-SLAPP motion for the libel cause of action, finding that the letter was written to prompt official action and was privileged under Civil Code section 47(b). However it denied the motion to strike the remaining causes of action.
- The appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion to strike the libel claim, but reversed the trial court’s denial as to the other claims, holding that defendants’ oral comments to school officials, interested parties (other parents), and the school board were all privileged.
- Lee v. Kim
(2019, 2d District – 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 546) - Lee v. Silveira
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 705) - Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Diaz
(2005, 2d District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1517, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 139) - Leegin brought an action for fraud against Diaz, an employee, alleging that Diaz had knowingly filed a fraudulent worker’s compensation claim. The trial court granted Diaz’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that Leegin is not likely to prevail on its claim.
- Lefebvre v. Lefebvre
(2011, 2d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 696, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 171) - Lennar Homes of California, Inc. v. Stephens
(2015, 4th District – 232 Cal.App.4th 673, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 638) - Levy v. City of Santa Monica
(2004, 2d District – 114 Cal.App.4th 1252, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 507) - After the Levys constructed a backyard playhouse, a neighbor complained to her city councillor, who inquired of planning department officials whether the construction conformed to regulations. Eventually a city employee notified the Levys that the playhouse was an unapproved structure and had to be removed or modified. The Levys sued the city and the councillor for violation of a city ordinance prohibiting councillors from giving orders to any subordinate of the city manager. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied on the grounds that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply. The appellate court reverses, holding that the city councillor’s communication to the planning department was advocacy protected by the First Amendment, not an order, and therefore covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Li v. Jin
(2022, 6th District – 83 Cal.App.5th 481, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 717) - Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc.
(2003, 2d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 536) - KCOP secretly recorded private consultations between Lieberman, a physician, and reporters posing as patients. The recordings were broadcast by KCOP to support allegations that Lieberman was improperly prescribing controlled drugs. Lieberman sued KCOP for violation of Penal Code section 632, which prohibits electronic eavesdropping on a confidential communication without consent of all parties and provides for monetary damages. The trial court denied KCOP’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, finding that Lieberman had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation of section 632. The trial court affirms. The court concludes that the secret recording was an act in furtherance of free speech inasmuch as the recording was incorporated into a news report, and therefore plaintiff’s cause of action is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Nevertheless, plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on his complaint since (1) a section 632 violation occurs the moment a confidential communication is secretly recorded, regardless of whether it is subsequently disclosed, and (2) there is no affirmative defense in the fact that the secret recording was part of legitimate newsgathering.
- Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc.
(2008, 1st District – 163 Cal.App.4th 620, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 707) - Lin v. City of Pleasanton
(2009, 1st District – 175 Cal.App.4th 1143, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 730) - Linsco/Private Ledger, Inc. v. Investors Arbitration Services, Inc.
(1996, 1st District – 50 Cal.App.4th 1633, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 613) - Note: This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
- Securities broker-dealers sought to enjoin the “unauthorized practice of law” by companies that represent individual investors in arbitration proceedings with brokers. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that disputes over individual investment losses are not matters of public concern and therefore the brokers’ complaint was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statue.
- Litinsky v. Kaplan
(2019, 2d District – 40 Cal.App.5th 970, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 62) - Liu v. Moore
(1999, 2d District – 69 Cal.App.4th 745, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 807) - A SLAPP plaintiff cannot avoid liability for defendant’s attorney’s fees by dismissing its complaint prior to the hearing on defendant’s motion to strike the complaint. The court must still decide the merits of the motion to strike in order to determine whether the defendant is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to fees.
- Lockton v. O’Rourke
(2010, 2d District – 184 Cal.App.4th 1051, 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 392) - Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 675, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 220) - Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht
(2015, 1st District – 235 Cal.App.4th 496, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 385) -
Long Beach Unified School Dist. v. Margaret Williams, LLC
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 87, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 354) - Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee
(2013, 1st District – 213 Cal.App.4th 635, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 641) - Ludwig v. Superior Court
(1995, 4th District -37 Cal.App.4th 8, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 350) - City, hoping to develop a shopping mall, sued a competing developer for interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition, alleging that the developer encouraged citizens to speak out at public meetings and file law suits against the city’s proposed mall. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed.
- Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez
(2015, 2d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 784)
Print This Page
The information on this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. The information here is meant to provide general information to the public.