Opinions in the U.S. District Courts concerning the California Anti-SLAPP Statute (CCP § 425.16): [note: the list below also includes some non-California cases involving CCP § 425.16]
Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.
United States District Court, N.D. California. August 02, 2019 398 F.Supp.3d 578
Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.
525 F.Supp.3d 1088 – ND Cal 2021
Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc.
270 F.Supp.3d 343 – D Mass. 2017
Arenas v. Shed Media US Inc.
881 F.Supp.2d 1181 – CD Cal. 2011
Blatt v. Pambakian
432 F.Supp.3d 1141 – CD Cal. 2020
Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
722 F.Supp.2d 1148 – CD Cal. 2010
Browne v. McCain
611 F.Supp.2d 1062 – CD Cal. 2009
Bulletin Displays, LLC v. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
448 F.Supp.2d 1172 – CD Cal. 2006
Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
229 F.Supp.2d 962 – CD Cal. 2007
Choose Energy, Inc. v. American Petroleum Institute
87 F.Supp.3d 1218 – ND Cal. 2015
Clifford v. Trump
339 F.Supp.3d 915 – CD Cal. 2018
Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo
329 F.Supp.3d 1000 – ND Cal. 2018
Competitive Technologies. v. Fujitsu Ltd.
286 F.Supp.2d 1118 – ND Cal. 2003
This is a very complex case of patent infringement and numerous related causes of action, further complicated by issues of choice of law since the case was transferred from a district court in Illinois. Competitive Technologies filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike certain counterclaims asserted by Fujitsu. The court concludes that California law does not apply to Fujitsu’s counterclaims.
Condit v. National Enquirer, Inc.
248 F.Supp.2d 945 – ED Cal. 2002
The wife of U.S. Congressman Gary Condit sued the National Enquirer for libel based on statements published in two issues of the weekly publication. Defendant’s motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is denied on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statements did not concern a public issue and the plaintiff had demonstrated in her complaint that she could succeed on the merits.
Cox v. Mariposa County
445 F.Supp.3d 804 – ED Cal. 2020
Davis v. Hollins Law
942 F.Supp.2d 1004 – ED Cal. 2013
Dean v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
562 F.Supp.3d 928 – CD Cal. 2022
Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Pandora Marketing, LLC
500 F.Supp.3d 1104 2020 WL – CD Cal. 2020
Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Pandora Marketing, LLC
541 F.Supp.3d 1020 – CD Cal. 2021
Dickman v. Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP
982 F.Supp.2d 1157 – SD Cal. 2013
Drawsand v. F.F. Properties, L.L.P.
866 F.Supp.2d 1110 – ND Cal. 2011
E.D.C. Technologies, Inc. v. Seidel
225 F.Supp.3d 1058 – ND Cal. 12-6-2016
eCash Technologies v. Guagliardo
127 F.Supp.2d 1069 – CD Cal 2000
After defendant registered the domain name “ecash.com”, plaintiff filed federal claims of cyberpiracy, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of plaintiff’s registration of the “eCash” mark and alleging unfair or unlawful business practices by plaintiff under state law. The court granted plaintiff’s special motion to strike defendant’s state law counterclaims pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute inasmuch as the counterclaims were based on a letter from plaintiff’s counsel that was a communication related to pending litigation and therefore privileged under Civil Code section 47(b).
Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty Ltd.
290 F.Supp.3d 923 – ND Cal. 2017
Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria v. Ceiba Legal, LLP
230 F.Supp.3d 1146 – ND Cal. 2-2-2017
Fabbrini v. City of Dunsmuir
544 F.Supp.2d 1044 – ED Cal. 2006
Flores v. Emerich & Fike
416 F.Supp.2d 885 – ED Cal. 2006
Plaintiff fruit growers filed a complaint alleging various forms of alter ego liability, fraudulent transfers, and the existence of a racketeering enterprise against the corporate defendants and the law firm and individual attorneys who represented them (Fike defendants). The Fike defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike several of the claims. The district court found that the section Civil Code 425.17 exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because it was strictly a private dispute, and the alleged actions of the Fike defendants did not involve marketing their services nor were representations made to potential consumers or to gain a competitive advantage. The court granted the motion to strike each cause of action because plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing on any of their claim.
Four Navy Seals & Jane Doe v. Associated Press
413 F.Supp.2d 1136 – SD Cal. 2005
Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Inc.
827 F.Supp.2d 1065 – ND Cal. 2011
Friedman v. DirecTV
262 F.Supp.3d 1000 – CD Cal. 2015
Gallagher v. Philipps
563 F.Supp.3d 1048 – SD Cal. 2021
Gamble v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
348 F.Supp.3d 1003 – ND Cal. 2018
Global Telemedia International, Inc. v. Doe 1
132 F.Supp.2d 1261 – CD Cal. 2001
Several individuals, using pseudonyms, posted remarks about a publicly traded telecommunications company in an Internet chat room. The company brought suit in state court, alleging trade libel, libel per se, interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage. Defendants removed the case to federal court. The court granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, after finding that the company had not satisfied its burden of showing a probability of success on its claims for trade libel and defamation. The court concluded that, given the context of publication and the “colorful and figurative language” of the postings, defendants’ statements about the company could not reasonably be understood to be factual.
Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc. Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc.
63 F.Supp.2d 1127 – ND Cal 1999
Globetrotter made statements to the market concerning the products of Elan and Rainbow and subsequently sued the two companies. The defendant companies brought a number of state-law counterclaims for damages due to Globetrotter’s statements. Globetrotter filed a special motion to strike the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP statute. The motion was denied on the grounds that statements by one company regarding the conduct of a competitor do not come within the statute’s protection of Petition Clause conduct.
Gottesman v. Santana
263 F.Supp.3d 1034 – SD Cal. 2017
Hanover Insurance Company v. Fremont Bank
68 F.Supp.3d 1085 – ND Cal. 2014
Harkonen v. Fleming
880 F.Supp.2d 1071 – ND Cal. 2012
Hart v. Larson
232 F.Supp.3d 1128 – SD Cal. 2017
Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow
445 F.Supp.3d 1042 – SD Cal. 2020 445 F.Supp.3d 1042
Hutton v. Law Offices of Collins & Lamore
668 F.Supp.2d 1251 – SD Cal. 2009
In re Bohrer
United States Bankruptcy Court, 628 B.R. 676 – SD Cal. 2021
In re Landes
United States Bankruptcy Court, 627 B.R. 144 _ ED Cal. 2021
In re Outlaw Laboratories, LP Litigation
352 F.Supp.3d 992 – SD Cal. 2018
Intel Corporation v. Seven Networks, LLC
562 F.Supp.3d 454 2021 – ND Cal. 2021
Johnson v. Altamirano
418 F.Supp.3d 530 – SD Cal. 2019
Kearney v. Foley & Lardner
553 F.Supp.2d 1178 – SD Cal. 2008
Lauter v. Anoufrieva
642 F.Supp.2d 1060 – CD Cal. 2009
Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
26 F.Supp.3d 1002 – SD Cal. 2014
Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.
94 F.Supp.3d 1128 – CD Cal. 2015
Mandel v. Hafermann
503 F.Supp.3d 946 – ND Cal 2020
Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. San Diego County (“Manufactured II”)
606 F.Supp.2d 1266 – SD Cal. 2009
MCSI, Inc. v. Woods
290 F.Supp.2d 1030 – ND Cal. 2003
Plaintiff sued defendants for multiple causes, including defamation, based on “negative statements” about the company on an Internet forum for discussion of large, publicly traded corporations. Defendant Woods, who had posted the remarks, filed a special motion to strike the complaint against him under the the anti-SLAPP statute. The court denies the motion on the grounds that the remarks did not concern a public issue and therefore are not protected by the statute.
Mello v. Great Seneca Financial Corp.
526 F.Supp.2d 1024 – CD Cal. 2008
Metabolife International, Inc. v. Susan Wornick (“Wornick I”)
72 F.Supp.2d 1160 – SD Cal. 1999
Metabolife claimed that defendants, in statements on a television broadcast, committed defamation, slander, trade libel, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The trial court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. It concludes that defendants’ statements are protected by the First Amendment, either because they are true or represent opinion, and thus are covered by the anti-SLAPP statute. Because the court refuses to admit evidence proferred by Metabolife as expert evidence, Metabolife cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. (See the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in this case.)
Metabolife International, Inc. v. Susan Wornick (“Wornick II”)
213 F.Supp.2d 1220 – SD Cal. 2002
Order granting attorney fees to defendant who prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion.
National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress
533 F.Supp.3d 802 – ND Cal. 2021
New.net, Inc. v. Lavasoft
356 F.Supp.2d 1090 – CD Cal. 2004
Parties are Internet software publishers. New.net writes software that is downloaded from the Internet to an individual’s computer without the knowledge or request of the computer owner. Lavasoft provides software that detects such programs and allows the computer owner to remove them. Plaintiff lost its bid for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Lavasoft from including New.net software in its list of removable programs. The court’s denial was based in part on the grounds that Lavasoft, through its software, was engaged in expression protected under the First Amendment. Defendant then filed an anti-SLAPP motion against all state-law claims, which the court granted.
Nicosia v. DeRooy
72 F.Supp.2d 1093 – ND Cal. 1999
Nicosia sued DeRooy for defamation in connection with statements published about Nicosia on DeRooy’s website. Nocosia was agent for the writer Jack Kerouac’s daughter Jan. The court granted a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP law, reasoning that the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure subject to the actual malice standard, had failed to plead actual malice with sufficient specificity, and therefore had failed to establish a probability that he would prevail in the case as required by the anti-SLAPP statute.
O’Handley v. Padilla
— F.Supp.3d —- N.D. California 2022
Penrose Hill, Limited v. Mabray
479 F.Supp.3d 840 – ND Cal. 2020
Physician’s Surrogacy, Inc. v. German
311 F.Supp.3d 1190 – SD Cal. 2018
Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Associates
946 F. Supp. 2d 957 – ND Cal. 2013
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress
214 F.Supp.3d 808 – ND Cal. 2016
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress
402 F.Supp.3d 615 – ND Cal. 2019
PLS.com, LLC v. National Association of Realtors
516 F.Supp.3d 1047 – CD Cal. 2021
Plumleigh v. City of Santa Ana
754 F.Supp.2d 1201 – CD Cal. 2010
Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.
872 F.Supp.2d 924 – ND Cal. 2012
Price v. Stossel
590 F.Supp.2d 1262 – CD Cal. 2008
Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos
359 F.Supp.3d 801- ND Cal. 2019
Ray Charles Foundation v. Robinson
919 F.Supp.2d 1054 – CD Cal. 2013
(Reversed by Ninth Circuit on non-anti-SLAPP issues; see 765 F.3d 1109, 1114)
Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International
— F.Supp.3d —- – ND Cal. 10-16-2017
Robinson v. Alameda County
875 F.Supp.2d 1029 – ND Cal. 2012
Rogers v. Home Shopping Network
57 F.Supp.2d 973 – CD Cal. 1999
Rogers sued the National Enquirer, alleging libelous statements about her in a published article. The newspaper filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court determined that the anti-SLAPP statute’s provision for staying discovery was inconsistent with Federal Rule of Procedure 56, and therefore postponed ruling on the motion until after the plaintiff had an opportunity to discover the identity of the purported confidential source of the published statements. “[I]f a defendant desires to make a special motion to strike based on the plaintiff’s lack of evidence, the defendant may not do so until discovery has been developed sufficiently to permit summary judgment under Rule 56. Once the nonmoving party has been given the opportunity to conduct discovery, the special motion can be heard….”
Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark
465 F.Supp.2d 1031 – SD Cal. 2009
Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino
875 F.Supp.2d 975 – ND Cal. 2012
Shack v. NBC Universal Media, LLC
467 F.Supp.3d 885 – CD Cal. 2020
Sharper Image Corporation v. Target Corp.
425 F.Supp.2d 1056 – ND Cal. 2006
Defendants brought counterclaims for tortious interference with economic advantage and unfair competition. Plaintiff filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants’ counterclaims were based on emails sent by plaintiff to retailers and media representatives who advertised the product in question, advising them of the lawsuit and asking them not to carry or advertise the product. The district court concluded that because the intended audience of the emails was actual or potential buyers or customers, or persons likely to repeat the statement to or otherwise influence an actual or potential buyer or customer, the counterclaims were exempt from the anti-SLAPP law, pursuant to Civil Code Section 425.17(c).
Shropshire v. Fred Rappoport Co.
294 F.Supp.2d 1085 – ND Cal. 2003
Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement and other causes of action, including interference with prospective economic advantage, after it terminated defendants’ rights to use a song in a video production. Defendants filed a special (anti-SLAPP) motion to strike the complaints for interference with prospective economic advantage on the grounds that the complaints were based on statements made by defendant in anticipation of litigation with plaintiffs and therefore protected by California’s “litigation privilege” statute. The court concludes that, before it can decide on the motion, it must resolve the factual question whether defendant’s allegedly tortious statements were made “with a good faith belief in a legally viable claim and in serious contemplation of litigation” and therefore plaintiff must be permitted to conduct discovery on this point. Accordingly, the court does not apply the California anti-SLAPP statute’s stay on discovery.
Sikhs for Justice “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
144 F.Supp.3d 1088 – ND Cal. 2015
Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.
723 F.Supp.2d 1205 – ND Cal. 2010
Sonoma Foods, Inc. v. Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC
634 F.Supp.2d 1009 – ND Cal. 2007
Stossel V. Meta
No. 21-cv-07385-VKD – ND California 2022
Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles
530 F.Supp.2d 1084 – CD Cal. 2008
Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
313 F.Supp.3d 1056 – ND Cal. 2018
Thomas v. Los Angeles Times Communications
189 F.Supp.2d 1005 – CD Cal. 2002
Thomas was the subject of a biography on his experiences during World War II. Thomas claimed to be a member of the French resistance and, as an agent of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps, to have uncovered evidence concerning Nazi concentration camp practices. After publication of the biography, an article critical of Thomas’s claims appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Thomas sued for damages, alleging defamation by implication. Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The district court grants the motion on the grounds that it is unlikely Thomas would prevail on the merits of his claim. The court analyzes in detail the Los Angeles Times article to reach the conclusion that it does not provide sufficient evidence of defamation by implication.
Tisdale v. City of Los Angeles
617 F.Supp.2d 1003 – CD Cal. 2009
Tobinick v. Novella
108 F.Supp.3d 1299 – SD Fla 2015
Troy Group, Inc. v. Tilson
364 F.Supp.2d 1149 – CD Cal. 2002
The Troy Group sued Tilson for defamation based on a statement Tilson made to his attorney in a lawsuit against Troy. Tilson filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. The parties disputed whether Tilson’s statement was “in connection with an issue of public interest” as required by the anti-SLAPP statute. The court grants Tilson’s motion on the grounds that the public issue requirement was satisfied and Troy had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of its claim.
Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors
682 F.Supp.2d 1003 – ND Cal. 2010
TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc.
626 F.Supp.2d 1120 – C.D. Cal. 2009
UCP International Company Limited v. Balsam Brands Inc.
420 F.Supp.3d 966 – ND Cal. 2019
United States ex rel. Solis v. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
445 F.Supp.3d 786 – ED Cal. 2020
United Tactical Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.
143 F.Supp.3d 982 – ND Cal. 2015
Weiland Sliding Doors & Windows, Inc. v. Panda Windows & Doors, LLC
814 F.Supp.2d 1033 – SD Cal. 2011
Welker v. Law Office of Daniel J. Horwitz
626 F.Supp.2d 1068 – S.D. Cal. 2009
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.