- Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures
(2010, 1st District – 184 Cal.App.4th 1539, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 129) - Hailstone v. Martinez
(2009, 5th District – 169 Cal.App.4th 728, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 798) - Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.
(2007, 2d District – 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 347) - Haneline Pacific Properties, LLC v. May
(2008, 4th District – 167 Cal.App.4th 311, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 919) - Hansen v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(2008, 5th District – 171 Cal.4th 1537, 90 Cal. Rptr.3d 381) - Hardin v. PDX, Inc.
(2014, 1st District – 227 Cal.App.4th 159, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 397) - Hart v. Darwish
(2017, 2d District – 12 Cal.App.5th 218, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 757) - Hawran v. Hixson
(2012, 4th District – 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88) - Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. v. Kabateck
(2016, 2d District – 7 Cal.App.5th 416, 212Cal.Rptr.3d 589) - Healy v. Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp.
(2006, 4th District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 547) - Plaintiff homeowner sued defendant homeowners association for allegedly defamatory statements defendant’s attorneys made in a letter which it sent out to residents of Tuscany Hills regarding a legal dispute over access through plaintiff’s property. The trial court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that the letter was protected by the litigation privilege and thus plaintiff could not prevail.
- Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization
(2012, District – 203 Cal.App.4th 450) - Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp.
(2015, 6th District – 239 Cal.App.4th 1174, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 807) - Hicks v. Richard
(2019, 4th District – 39 Cal.App.5th 1167, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 578) - HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co.
(2004, 2d District – 118 Cal.App.4th 204, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 786) - The parties had had a business relationship for a brief period. After the relationship was ended, Lawyers Title sued HMS to recover fees allegedly owed it. Judgment was entered by stipulation. HMS then filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Lawyers Title. Defendant’s special (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the complaint was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that HMS had met its burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on it malicious prosecution lawsuit by making a prima facie showing that Lawyers Title acted with the intent to deliberately misuse the legal system for personal gain or satisfaction at HMS’s expense.
- Holbrook v. City of Santa Monica
(2006, 2d District – 144 Cal.App.4th 1247, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 181) - Hui v. Sturbaum
(2014, 1st District – 222 Cal.App.4th 1109, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 569) - Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
(2013, 2d District – 221 Cal.App.4th 1510, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 123) - Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.
(2005, 4th District – 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 521) - Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. (HLS) and its employee Claire Macdonald sued defendant animal rights activists for trespass, harassment, and related causes of action arising from protests which occurred outside plaintiff Macdonald’s home. Defendants appealed an order denying their anti-SLAPP motion.The appellate court affirmed the denial as to some but not all causes of actions. The court held that the anti-SLAPP statute applied because the gravamen of the action against defendants was based on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and that mere allegations that defendants acted illegally did not render the anti-SLAPP statute inapplicable. As to the probability of plaintiffs’ prevailing on the merits, the court held that collateral estoppel based on the granting of a preliminary injunction was inapplicable to an anti-SLAPP motion because the issues were not identical. It granted the motion to strike the causes of action for trespass and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage because plaintiffs produced insufficient evidence. It also granted the motion to strike plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because plaintiff failed to show duty. The court affirmed the denial as to the causes of action for harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and Macdonald’s individual unfair competition claim because plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing.
- Hupp v. Freedom Communications, Inc.
(2013, 4th District – 221 Cal.App.4th 398, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 919) - Hutton v. Hafif
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 527, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 109) - Hylton v. Rogozienski, Inc.
(2009, 4th District – 177 Cal.App.4th 1264, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 805)
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.