Tel: 510-486-9123
Fax: 510-486-9708


Subscribe to RSS

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.

Supreme Court Limits Right to File Certain Anti-SLAPP Motions

Posted by on Mar 31, 2018

On March 22, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, S239777, which limits the right to file certain anti-SLAPP motions. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (f) permits a defendant to file an anti-SLAPP motion “within 60 days of the service of the complaint, or in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.” Resolving a conflict between the lower courts, the Supreme Court concluded: “Because the anti-SLAPP statute...

read more

California Supreme Court Reins in Abuse of Anti-SLAPP Law

Posted by on May 5, 2017

On May 4, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued an important opinion that reins in abuse of the anti-SLAPP law by government entities.  In Park v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, the Court ruled unanimously that the defendant public university could not invoke the California anti-SLAPP law to attack a discrimination lawsuit brought by a professor challenging a decision not to grant him tenure.  This should put a stop to a growing trend of government entities invoking that law to challenge lawsuits seeking to...

read more


Posted by on Jun 15, 2015

by: Mark Goldowitz CASP Joins 33 Other Organizations in Letter Urging Congress to Enact SPEAK FREE Act. “On May 13, 2015, bi-partisan co-sponsors in the House introduced the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015, a law designed to protect Americans from meritless lawsuits that target their First Amendment rights.” ( This morning, June 15, only 33 days later, a broad coalition of 34 organizations urged Congressional leaders to enact the SPEAK FREE Act. This morning, the Public Participation Project joined 33 other...

read more

Vexatious litigant and attorney sanctioned for filing frivolous anti-SLAPP appeal

Posted by on Jul 15, 2014

California’s anti-SLAPP law recently assisted in giving some closure to a defendant who had been battling with a vexatious litigant in California courts for the past ten years. The dispute began back in 2005 when Lipworth (the defendant in the present case) was assigned a six figure judgment against Singh (the plaintiff). In order to collect, Lipworth successfully moved to amend the judgment to add certain aliases of Singh, which Lipworth showed Singh had used in previous lawsuits. The court then granted Lipworth’s application to sell...

read more

Court of Appeal Holds That Anti-SLAPP Law Does Not Apply to Claims Arising from Attorneys’ Withdrawal of Settlement Funds

Posted by on Jul 1, 2014

On Friday, June 27, 2014, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the anti-SLAPP law does not apply to causes of action arising from attorneys’ withdrawal of settlement funds because that withdrawal was neither communicative nor related to an issue of public interest. In Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc., defendant attorneys appealed a trial court order denying their anti-SLAPP motion as to three causes of action, for breach of contract, negligence, and declaratory relief. The...

read more

Makaeff’s Anti-SLAPP Motion (Finally) Granted in Lawsuit Against Trump University – Anti-SLAPP Statute Still Applicable to State Claims in Federal Court

Posted by on Jun 24, 2014

 Print This Post In 2010, Tarla Makaeff (Makaeff) filed a deceptive business practices class action lawsuit in federal court against Trump University (Trump), alleging that Trump never delivered on its promises of the scope and benefits of the program that lured her into paying nearly $60,000 in tuition (essentially arguing that Trump was an “elaborate scam”). Trump then filed a counterclaim for defamation against Makaeff, based on statements that she had made about her experience with Trump on the Internet. Makaeff filed an...

read more

Court holds that pre-litigation demand email is extortionate as a matter of law

Posted by on Jun 20, 2014

Whether or not a pre-litigation demand letter is extortionate as a matter of law has been a hot topic in anti-SLAPP litigation over the past ten years. In 2006, the Supreme Court held that the anti-SLAPP law does not apply when the defendant concedes, or the evidence conclusively establishes that the defendants conquest was illegal as a matter of law. Flatley v. Mauro held that the defendant’s over-the-top pre-litigation demand letter and phone calls were extortionate as a matter of law. Since then, two published opinions have followed...

read more

Court Rules that City Council Vote to Approve a Contract is Not Protected Activity When the Council Members Have a Financial Interest in That Contract

Posted by on Jun 19, 2014

 Print This Post UPDATE: On August 13, 2014, the California Supreme Court unanimously voted to grant a petition for review in this case, to address the following issue: “Did votes by city officials to approve a contract constitute conduct protected under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 despite the allegation that they had a financial interest in the contract?” In City of Montebello v. Vasquez, the City of Montebello (the City) sued several former Montebello city council members and a former city administrator, seeking...

read more

S&P and Moody’s must face CalPERS’ $1 billion lawsuit – Court of Appeal affirms denial of rating agencies’ anti-SLAPP motion

Posted by on Jun 11, 2014

Late last month, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, ruled in CalPERS v. Moody’s that Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service Inc. (S&P and Moody’s) must face the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s (CalPERS) $1 billion lawsuit over S&P and Moody’s ratings of structured investment vehicles. The trial court’s ruling, which was “affirmed in full” by the Court of Appeal, rejected a request by the rating companies to dismiss the case...

read more

D’Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America – Court of Appeal Tosses Agricultural Company’s Lawsuit

Posted by on Mar 24, 2014

Evan Mascagni and Mark Goldowitz In D’Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America, D’Arrigo sued UFW for breach of contract.  UFW moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP law, but the trial court denied the motion.  On appeal, UFW argued that the case arose from its protected petitioning activity and that D’Arrigo could not show a probability of prevailing in the action. First Prong: UFW’s Protected Petitioning Activity UFW has represented D’Arrigo’s agricultural employees in Salinas Valley since the...

read more

Site last updated April 4, 2018 @ 12:53 pm; This content last updated February 28, 2016 @ 3:02 pm