SLAPP Blog
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. We would be happy to consider your specific situation and the possibility of providing legal advice or assistance if you contact us directly.
CA Court of Appeal Issues New Published Decision Involving CCP 425.16
In a new published opinion, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that the submission of insurance claims may constitute protected prelitigation conduct under the anti-SLAPP law. The People ex rel.Fire Insurance Exchange v. Anapol involved a fire insurance company that alleged several people, including two attorneys, engaged in the submission of false claims for damage arising from Southern California wildfires. The attorneys filed anti-SLAPP motions, arguing that their pursuit of insurance claims and acts in...
read more2012 Marks 20 Years of Protections Against SLAPPs
Since 1991, the California Anti-SLAPP Project has organized broad support for California’s anti-SLAPP law, leading to its enactment in 1992 and subsequent amendments strengthening the law. Despite opposition along the way, CASP has helped California’s anti-SLAPP law become one of the country’s strongest state laws protecting free speech and petition activity. As 2012 marks the twenty-year anniversary of the enactment of the law, we take a look back at twenty of the most significant moments in the law’s history: September...
read moreCalifornia SLAPP News, October 2012
Chodos v. Cole – Claims for Indemnification for Attorney Malpractice Not Covered by Anti-SLAPP Law Last week, the Court of Appeal, Second District, issued a published decision in Chodos v. Dole. The case involved a cross-complaint that was filed against Hillel Chodos and another attorney for malpractice in connection with their representation in, and settlement of, a marital dissolution. Chodos then cross-complained against other attorneys for indemnification for any malpractice award against him because, he alleged, those other...
read moreYoung v. Tri-City Healthcare District – An Act of Governance Mandated by Law is Not an Exercise of Free Speech or Petition
Yesterday, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued a published decision denying Tri-City Healthcare District’s (“the District”) anti-SLAPP motion. While the District claimed that their alleged misconduct arose from hospital peer review proceedings that were protected speech under 425.16(e)(1) and (e)(2), the Court disagreed and held that an individual seeking judicial relief from an administrative body’s decision did not amount to an exercise of the administrative body’s free speech and was thus not...
read moreNew CA Court of Appeal Decision Emphasizes Importance of Broad Interpretation of Anti-SLAPP Statute
The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, in San Diego, issued a new published decision today embracing a broad interpretation of the public interest requirement of California’s anti-SLAPP statute, as well as a strong protections for non-actionable opinions. The case, Chaker v. Mateo, involved statements the defendant posted online at Ripoff Report and Topix about the plaintiff and his forensics business. The statements included: “You should be scared. This guy is a criminal and a deadbeat dad. As you can see, I am the...
read moreCalifornia SLAPP News, September 10-24, 2012
Beginning today, the California Anti-SLAPP Project will highlight some of the top stories on the web discussing California’s anti-SLAPP law. CASP’s SLAPP Blog will not only be a resource for lawyers and the general public to read in depth analyses of cases and issues around California’s anti-SLAPP law, but it will also be a resource to keep you up to date on the most recent stories on the web discussing California’s anti-SLAPP law. Here are some of the top stories from the past two weeks: Judge Set to Toss David...
read moreAnti-SLAPP Laws on Trial
Mark Goldowitz, Founder and Director of the California Anti-SLAPP Project, was recently interviewed and quoted in a Feature article by Emily Miller at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press discussing SLAPPs and the need for federal anti-SLAPP legislation. Excerpt: “SLAPPs have a really detrimental effect on people’s First Amendment rights,” said Mark Goldowitz, president of the board of directors of the Public Participation Project. “Those federally adopted procedures would only be applicable in federal court. It essentially...
read moreCalifornia Leads the Country in Protecting Online Anonymity
Ken Paulson, President of the The First Amendment Center, recently wrote a piece titled “Online anonymity no sure thing in libel cases,” where he discussed a “number of cases in recent months in which judges have upheld subpoenas that give libel-suit plaintiffs the identities of those who have been posting ugly things about them.” Since the enactment of the California anti-SLAPP law almost twenty years ago, Californians have been protected against abusive subpoenas, so long as the lawsuit was filed in California. ...
read moreA Great SLAPP Decision: Redmond v. Gawker Continues the Evolution of Online Defamation Law
Written by Ryan Metheny and Mark Goldowitz On the heels of Ryan’s post regarding arguably the worst decision under the California Anti-SLAPP law, we thought it appropriate to praise a great recent decision that properly applied the law, entitled Redmond v. Gawker Media, LLC (First Appellate District case no. A132785, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5879; 2012 WL 3243507). This case is especially significant for its contribution to the rapidly evolving area of online defamation law. The court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Sandra...
read moreGerbosi v. Gaims: the Worst Decision Under the Anti-SLAPP Law?
In any body of case law as large as that applying California’s anti-SLAPP statute (approximately 400 published opinions so far and counting), you will find some outliers and oddities. One case, however, stands out above all the rest. That decision, Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, has not only affected the coherence of the case law under the statute, but has also materially limited the extent to which the statute protects those who have been sued for exercising their First Amendment rights. Before...
read more