- C.W. Howe Partners Inc. v. Mooradian
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 688, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 806) - Cabral v. Martins
(2009, 1st District – 177 Cal.App.4th 471, 99 Cal. Rptr.3d 394) - California Back Specialists Medical Group v. Rand
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1032, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 268) - Callanan v. GRIZZLY DESIGNS, LLC
(2022, 3rd District – 81 Cal.App.5th 517, 296 Cal Rptr.3d 168)) - Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP v. Cohen
(2011, 2d District – 195 Cal.App.4th 373, Cal.Rptr.3d) - Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp.
(2007, 2d District – 151 Cal.App.4th 454, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 839)
- Carver v. Bonds
(2005, 1st District – 169 Cal.App.4th 328, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 480) - Plaintiff podiatrist sued baseball player, reporters, and newspaper for defamation arising from statements in a newspaper article. Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions were granted; plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that stating facts and opinions about plaintiff was plainly “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of … [defendants’] constitutional right[s] of free speech” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4); and since the statements served as a warning against plaintiff’s method of self-promotion, and were provided along with other information to assist patients in choosing doctors, the statements involved a matter of public concern. Furthermore, because plaintiff could not prove falsity, and because some of the newspaper’s statements were privileged, he did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claims.
- Castillo v. Pacheco
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 242, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 305) - Castleman v. Sagaser
(2013, 5th District – 216 Cal.App.4th 481, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 492) - Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc.
(2022, 1st District – 73 Cal.App.5th 764, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 773) - Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health
(2018, 1st District – 19 Cal.App.5th 203, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 848) - Century21 v. Haberman
(2009, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 249) - Chabak v. Monroy
(2007, 5th District – 140 Cal.App.4th 821, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 777) - Chaker v. Mateo
(2012, 4th District – 209 Cal.App.4th 1138, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 496) - Chambers v. Miller
(2006, 4th District – 94 Cal.App.4th 1083, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 825) - Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Peng Xufeng
(2020, 4th District – 57 Cal.App.5th 1, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 853) - Charney v. Standard General, L.P.
(2017, 2d District – 10 Cal.App.5th 149, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 889) - Chavez v. Mendoza
(2001, 4th District – 148 Cal.App.4th 71, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 600) - Mendoza sued an insurance company and its agents, Richard and Ina Chavez, asserting numerous contract and tort claims. All claims but one were dismissed. Subsequently the Chavezes sued Mendoza for malicious prosecution. Mendoza moved to strike the complaint as a SLAPP. The trial court ruled that a malicious prosecution complaint was not subject to the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court reversed the ruling, holding that a malicious prosecution complaint is subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. However, the court also concluded that the Chavezes had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their complaint and therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mendoza’s special motion to strike the complaint.
- Chen v. Valstock Ventures, LLC
(2022, 1st District – 82 Cal.App.5th 394) - Cheveldave v. Tri Palms Unified Owners Assn.
(2018, 4th District – 27 Cal.App.5th 1202, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 792) - Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow
(2011, 2d District – 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 910) - Cho v. Chang
(2013, 2d District – 219 Cal.App.4th 521, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 846) - Chodos v. Cole
(2012, 2d District – 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 451) - Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (“Alnor I”)
(2007, 4th District – 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 866) - Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (“Alnor II”)
(2008, 4th District – 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 866) - Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim
(1996, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 620) - The Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit seeking to vacate a multimillion dollar judgment against it, in favor of our client, Lawrence Wollersheim. This was part of extensive and drawn-out litigation (lasting 15 years) between Scientology and Wollersheim. The trial court granted Wollersheim’s anti-SLAPP motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action arising from any act in furtherance of the right of petition, such as Wollersheim’s original successful lawsuit, regardless of the subject matter. More than $428,000 in fees were awarded.
- Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Hass
(2020, 4th District – 46 Cal.App.5th 589, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 380) - Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 117, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 501) - City of Alhambra v. D’Ausilio
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 1301, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 142) - City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments, LLC
(2013, 4th District – 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698) - City of Industry v. City of Fillmore
(2011, 2d District – 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 433) - City of Long Beach v. California Citizens for Neighborhood Empowerment
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 302, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 473) - City filed a civil complaint against CCNE, alleging violations of the municipal code concerning campaign contributions. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, holding that the “prosecutorial exemption” in the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to the complaint and the city had not demonstrated that it was likely to prevail on the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the prosecutorial exemption — “enforcement actions brought in the name of the people of the State of California” — applies to civil actions by cities enforcing municipal law. According to the court, the legislative history of the statute indicates a broader intent behind the exemption than is evident from the specific wording. (See also People v. Health Laboratories of North America, Inc., 1st District Court of Appeal, and People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar, 4th District Court of Appeal.)
- City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 606, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 632) - The City of Los Angeles, on behalf of two of its employees, filed petitions seeking workplace violence protective orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 against animal rights activists. Defendants filed anti-SLAPP motions which the trial court denied, holding that the petitions were exempt as public entity enforcement actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(d).The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the exemption did not apply because the City filed the petitions as “employer” and not in its capacity as “public prosecutor” the petitions arose from protected free speech activity; and the City failed to demonstrate a probability it would prevail on its claims because (1) the protective orders under section 527.8 can only be brought against natural persons (not ADL), and (2) the City presented no evidence that individual defendant Ferdin conveyed a credible threat of violence in the workplace.
- City of Oxnard v. Starr
(2023, 2nd District – 88 Cal.App.5th 313) - City of Riverside v. Stansbury
(2007, 4th District – 155 Cal.App.4th 1582, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 862) - City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures-Rocklin
(2022, 3d District – 86 Cal. App. 5th 713) - City of San Diego v. Dunkl
(2001, 4th District – 86 Cal.App.4th 384, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 269) - The City and the partnership that owns the San Diego Padres baseball team filed preemptive suits against proponents of a ballot initiative that would have made certain negative findings concerning an earlier city ordinance that authorized funds for construction of a downtown ballpark. Plaintiffs argued that the initiative was invalid and should not be placed on the ballot even if adequate signatures were obtained because the initiative sought to enact measures that were beyond the power of hte voters to adopt. Defendants filed a special motion to strike. The trial court granted summary judgment and ruled that in consequence the SLAPP motion was moot. The appellate court affirms. “Where . . . declaratory relief actions present purely legal questions about the validity of the subject matter of the lawsuits, . . . the SLAPP issue of whether the plaintiffs are more probably than not going to prevail in their actions may appropriately be determined by the use of related summary judgment proceedings.”
- City of Santa Monica v. Stewart
(2005, 2d District – 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 72) - Several lawsuits were brought concerning enforcement of initiatives approved by voters in Santa Monica and Pasadena. The initiatives sought to prevent city officials from receiving certain advantages from persons or entities who benefited from decisions made by those officials. Pasadena officials refused to certify the initiative on the grounds that they believed it was unconstitutional. A Pasadena resident filed a petition for a writ of mandate to require the city to certify the initiative; the initiative’s sponsor was granted leave to intervene. The city filed a cross-complaint against the sponsor seeking a judicial declaration that the city had no duty to certify the initiative under the law. The sponsor filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the cause of action in the cross-complaint arose from protected First Amendment activity and the city was not able to demonstrate the required probability of succeeding on the cross-complaint.
- CKE Restaurants, Inc. v. Moore
(2008, 2d District – 159 Cal.App.4th 262, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 921) -
Clarity Co. Consulting v. Gabriel
(2022, 2d District – 77 Cal.App.5th 454, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 532)
- Clark v. Mazgani
(2009, 2d District – 170 Cal.App.4th 1280, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 24) - Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club
(2006, 1st District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1166, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 818) - Note! Opinion superseded by California Supreme Court’s granting of petition for review on June 21, 2006 (S143087).Plaintiffs filed suit against Sierra Club, alleging improper distribution of information during an election to the Club’s board of directors. The trial court granted Sierra Club’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reversed as to three causes of action which it found were exempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17(b) as a public interest action. It also found that one cause of action was not exempt under section 425.17(b) because the claim “seeks relief pertaining specifically to [two named directors] … [and] the gravamen of a cause of action seeking relief of such a personal kind does not satisfy the public interest criterion of the exemption of § 425.17.” The court found that the claim arose from acts protected by the First Amendment in connection with a public issue, and that the uncontested summary judgment in favor of defendant conclusively established that plaintiff had no probability of prevailing.
- Cohen v. Brown
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 302, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 24) - Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC
(2012, 2d District – 206 Cal.App.4th 1095, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 646)
- Collier v. Harris
(2015, 4th District – 240 Cal.App.4th 41, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 31) - Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista
(2021, 1st District – 61 Cal.App.5th 1039, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 895) - Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 109 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 245) - The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Colt for “an illegal scheme to manipulate the price of four stocks.” Colt responded to the SEC action by stipulating to a consent decree. After Freedom Communications published stories about the SEC allegations, Colt sued for defamation and other damages. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, and the appellate court affirms. The court concluded that, because defendant is immune from liability for the articles under Civil Code section 47 and plaintiff had not offered credible evidence of actual malice, plaintiff had not established a probability of prevailing on the complaint as required by the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Coltrain v. Shewalter
(2003, 4th District – 66 Cal.App.4th 94, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 600) - Our clients, the neighbors of an apartment complex, filed nuisance actions in small claims court against the owners of the complex, after unsuccessful attempts to abate alleged criminal activity and harassment by residents of the complex. In retaliation, the owners of the complex sued our clients for trade libel, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. After our clients filed an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs dismissed their complaint. The Court of Appeal found that our clients were targets of a SLAPP and were entitled to recover our attorneys fees, even though the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint.
- Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes
(2017, 2d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 119, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 767) - Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 110 Cal.App.4th 26, 1 Cal.Rpr.3d 390) - Commonwealth Energy gave Investor Data a list of Commonwealth’s shareholders. After Investor Data used the list to market its services to the shareholders, Commonwealth sued for a variety of business-related causes of action. Investor Data filed an anti-SLAPP motion, denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirms. The court points out that, because the speech alleged to be the cause of action (Investor Data’s pitch to Commonwealth’s investors) did not occur within an official proceeding, the decision whether Investor Data’s statements are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute depends entirely on whether the statements were made in connection with a public issue (following the standard announced by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity). The court holds that a sales pitch for a commercial service does not qualify as a public issue for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. (See the earlier case, Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 1st District Court of Appeal.)
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson
(2001, 4th District – 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 625) - After a failed attempt at merger between ComputerXpress and a business owned by defendants, defendants posted statements about ComputerXpress on the internet and filed a complaint against ComputerXpress with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). ComputerXpress sued, alleging in nine causes of action that defendants had conspired to damage its reputation and cause it economic harm. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that none of the causes of action fell under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court noted that the nine causes of action were based on three distinct sets of facts: (1) statements made in private business transactions, (2) the internet postings, and (3) the SEC complaint. The court concluded that statements made in the internet postings and SEC complaint fell under the anti-SLAPP statute, whereas the statements made in private business transactions did not. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the causes of action subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. In addition, the court ruled that defendants should be considered the prevailing party on the SLAPP motion, notwithstanding their partial success, and thus are entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred by the motion.
- Comstock v. Aber
(2013, 1st District – 212 Cal.App.4th 931) - Lisa Aber filed a claim of sexual harassment and battery against her employer and two of its employees. One of those employees filed a cross-complaint against Aber, alleging claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted Aber’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the cross-complaint. The Court of Appeal affirmed. In its decision, the Court of Appeal held that Aber’s statements to the police, a nurse, and the employer’s HR manager were all protected under the anti-SLAPP law, as statements made in, or in connection with matters under review by, an official proceeding or body, and that the cross-complainant had not shown that his claims had any merit. Cross-complainant appealed the trial court’s award of $62,299.60 for Aber’s attorneys’ fees and costs, but that appeal was later dismissed.
- Conroy v. Spitzer
(1999, 4th District – 70 Cal.App.4th 1446, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 443) - A candidate for public office sued his rival, alleging defamation in the rival’s campaign statements. The appellate court upholds the trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiff was a public figure and thus required to prove malice to prevail on a claim of defamation; he failed to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction a probability of prevailing on his claim, as required to defeat the special motion.
- Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica International, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 107 Cal.App.4th 595, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 191) - Consumer and consumer advocate sued a manufacturer of herbal supplements, alleging false advertising and other causes of action for the company’s claim that its herbal supplement enlarged women’s breasts. The appellate court affirms the trial court’s denial of the company’s special motion to strike the complaint. Defendant had not shown that its commercial speech was protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute and in any event plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims.
- Contemporary Services Corp. v. Staff Pro Inc.
(2007, 4th District – 152 Cal.App.4th 1043, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 434) - Contreras v. Dowling
(2016, 1st District – 5 Cal.App.5th 394, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 707) - Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
(2013, 4th District – 215 Cal.App.4th 1237, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 70) - Cordoba Corp. v. City of Industry
(2023, 2d District – 87 Cal.App.5th 145) - Coretronic Corporation et al. v. Cozen O’Connor et al.
(2011, 2d District – 192 Cal.App.4th 1381, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 254 - County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
(2016, 4th District – 246 Cal.App.4th 20, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 573) - Cross v. Cooper
(2011, 6th District – 197 Cal. App. 4th 357; 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 903) - Cross v. Facebook, Inc.
(2017, 1st District – 14 Cal.App.5th 190, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 250) - Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Federal National Mortgage Association
(2017, 3d District – 13 Cal.App.5th 757, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 1) - Cruz v. City of Culver City
(2016, 2d District – 2 Cal.App.5th 239, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 736) -
Cuevas-Martinez v. Sun Salt Sand, Inc.
(2019, 4th District – 35 Cal.App.5th 1109, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 200)Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Pacific Dredge & Construction, LLC
(2022, 4th District – 76 Cal.App.5th 651, 291 Cal.Rptr.3d 639)
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.