- D’Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America
(2014, 6th District – 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 171) - D.C. v. R.R.
(2010, 2d District – 182 Cal.App.4th 1190, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 399) - Dae v. Traver
(2021, 2nd District, Division 2 – 69 Cal.App.5th 447, 284 Cal.Rptr.3d 495) - Daimler Chrysler Motors Co. v. Lew Williams, Inc.
(2006, 3d District – 142 Cal.App.4th 344, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 233) - Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club
(2000, 4th District – 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 205) - The appellate court upholds the trials court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint. Held: The anti-SLAPP statutes applies to allegedly defamatory statements made at meetings of a homeowners association and in the association’s newsletter because both forums were open to the public and the defendants’ statements “concerned the manner in which a large residential community would be governed.”
- Daniel v. Wayans
(2017, 2d District – 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 213Cal.Rptr.3d 865) - Daniels v. Robbins
(2010, 4th District – 182 Cal.App.4th 204, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 223) - Dean v. Friends of Pine Meadow
(2018, 1st District – ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 865) - DeCambre v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 1, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 888)
(modification, 4-2-15) - Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 892) - Note: Opinion overruled by Assembly Bill 1158 (2005), amending Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
- UDR is a consumer reporting agency that gathers and sells information about unlawful detainer cases. Several tenants, after unsuccessfully attempting to have UDR amend information about them in UDR’s records, sued UDR, alleging negligence, defamation, and other acts. The trial court denied UDR’s anti-SLAPP motions to strike the complaints, finding that the motions were frivolous. The appellate court affirms on the grounds that UDR’s motions did not meet the requirement in the anti-SLAPP statute for notice of a hearing no later than 30 days after service of the motion. (See also Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002).)
- de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC
(2018, 2d District – 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 625) - Delois v. Barrett Block Partners
(2009, 1st District – 177 Cal.App.4th 940, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 609) - Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc
(2014, 2d District – 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 131) - Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 1273, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 349) - Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics
(2009,1st District – 170 Cal.App.4th 843, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 464) - Dickens v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
(2004, 2d District – 117 Cal.App.4th 705, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 877) - Dickens was charged in criminal court with defrauding Provident by submitting false claims that he was disabled. Dickens was acquitted by a jury. He then sued Provident, alleging malicious prosecution and other causes of action. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms, holding that a malicious prosecution claim based on termination of a criminal prosecution in plaintiff’s favor is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. The court concludes that Dickens failed to establish a prima facie case of liability for malicious prosecution because he offered no evidence that defendant was instrumental in the criminal prosecution against Dickens.
- Dickinson v. Cosby I
(2017, 2d District – 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 430) - Dickinson v. Cosby II
(2019, 2d District – 37 Cal.App.5th 1138, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 350) - Digerati Holdings, LLC v. Young Money Entertainment, LLC
(2011, 2d District- 194 Cal.App.4th 873, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 736) - Direct Shopping Network, LLC v. James
(2012, 2d District – 206 Cal.App.4th 1551, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 1) - Dixon v. Superior Court
(1994, 4th District – 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 687) - Surveyor brought an action against a university professor, alleging interference with economic relationships, libel, slander, and trade libel arising from statements critical of the surveyor’s report regarding a proposed development at the university. The statements were made during the public review period following issuance of a negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The lower court’s denial of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed.
- Doe v. Luster
(2006, 2d District – 145 Cal.App.4th 139, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 403) - Doe v. McLaughlin
(2022, 1st District – 83 Cal.App.5th 640) - Doe v. State of California
(2017, 4th District – 8 Cal.App.5th 832, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 391) - John Doe 2 v. Superior Court
(2016, 2d District – 1 Cal.App.5th 1300, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 60) - Donovan v. Dan Murphy Foundation
(2012, 2d District – 204 Cal.App.4th 1500, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 71) - Dorit v. Noe
(2020, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.5th 458, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 98) - Dougherty v. Haag
(2008, 4th District – 165 Cal.App.4th 315, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 1) - Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
(1996, 2d District – 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 830) - A recording company sued a law firm for defamation for alleging the company had failed to pay royalties to charities designated by celebrities who had made a recording. The lower court’s granting of the defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed. The law firm’s letter to celebrities who had participated in the recording is protected from defamation liability under Civil Code section 47 as a communication preliminary to an official proceeding. Defendants’ appellate attorney fees are recoverable as part of attorney fees authorized by the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Dowling v. Zimmerman
(2001, 4th District – 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174) - Landlord sued attorney who represented tenants in unlawful detainer action for defamation, misrepresentation, and infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court affirms the trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaints. The anti-SLAPP statute applies because the cause of action is statements made in connection with a pending unlawful detainer action, statements that arguably involved public issues of nuisance and safety (defendant stated that someone had twice entered a locked garage and turned off the dial of the tenants’ water heater). Plaintiff’s complaint was pleaded without the requisite specificity and defendant’s statements were privileged under Civil Code section 47(b). The court of appeal also stated that the provision in the anti-SLAPP law for attorney fees must be construed broadly, that a pro per defendant could collect fees under anti-SLAPP law for assistance from retained anti-SLAPP counsel, and that defendant could proceed to collect fee award even though plaintiff had appealed it, unless plaintiff posted a bond.
- Drell v. Cohen
(2014, 2d District – 232 Cal.App.4th 24, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 191) - Drum v. Bleau, Fox & Associates
(2003, 2d District – 107 Cal.App.4th 1009, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 602) - Bleau Fox, a law firm, won a legal malpractice action against Drum and his law firm in a jury trial. Although the judge stayed the judgment pending notice of appeal, Bleau Fox immediately filed a levy against Drum’s bank account. Drum then filed a complaint against Bleau Fox for abuse of process. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that Drum had established a prima facie case and the action is not barred by the litigation privilege (Civil Code section 47(b)).
- Drummond v. Desmarais
(2009, 6th District – 176 Cal.App.4th 439, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 394) - Du Charme v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 45
(2003, 1st District – 110 Cal.App.4th 107, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 501) - After he was terminated as assistant business manager for a union, the union’s trustee posted a statement on the Internet that Du Charme had been fired for “financial mismanagement”. Du Charme sued the trustee and the union on a variety of complaints. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied on the grounds that the statement posted on the Internet was not made in connection with any official proceeding and did not concern a public issue, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms, emphasizing that a statement must concern an issue of widespread public interest to qualify for protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. “[M]ere publication … should not turn otherwise private information … into a matter of public interest.”
- Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. v. Buschel
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1098, 212 Cal Rptr 3d 75) - Dunning v. Clews
(2021, 4th District – 64 Cal.App.5th 156, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 607) - Dunning v. Johnson
(April 23, 2021, D076570) - DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court
(2000, 4th District – 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755) - A class action was filed against DuPont, claiming damages on behalf of purchasers of a drug manufactured by DuPont and alleging that DuPont made false statements before regulatory bodies, the medical profession, and the public regarding the drug. DuPont filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The motion was denied by the trial court. The appellate court determined that the remarks complained of were “acts in furtherance of the person’s [DuPont’s] right of petition or free speech” protected by the anti-SLAPP statute and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff could demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, as required by the statute. (See also Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.)
- Dwight R. v. Christy B.
(2013, 4th District – 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 406) - Dyer v. Childress
(2007, 2d District – 147 Cal.App.4th 1273, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 544) - Dziubla v. Piazza
(2020, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 140, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 297)
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.