- Walker v. Kiousis
(2001, 4th District – 93 Cal.App.4th 1432, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 69) - Walker, a California Highway Patrolman, arrested Kiousis for suspected drunk driving. After pleading guilty, Kiousis filed a citizen complaint against Walker with the CHP, alleging conduct inappropriate for an officer. The CHP determined the complaint was without merit, and Walker then sued Kiousis for defamation. Civil Code section 47 generally creates an absolute privilege for statements made in the course of an official proceeding. However, section 47.5 creates an exception, allowing a peace officer to bring a defamation action against an individual who knowingly and maliciously files a false complaint about the office. Kiousis moved to dismiss Walker’s suit, arguing that Civil Code section 47.5 was unconstitutional and therefore his complaint to the CHP was protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the motion to strike, but on the grounds that Walker had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his lawsuit, as required by the anti-SLAPP statute, because he had not shown he sustained any actual damage. The appellate court affirmed the granting of the motion to strike, but on the grounds that section 47.5 is unconstitutional because it impermissably regulates speech based on the content of the speech.
- Wallace v. McCubbin
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 744, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 909) - Wang v. Hartunian
(2003, 2d District – 111 Cal.App.4th 744, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 909) - In a dispute over use of a vacant lot owned by Wang, Hartunian obtained a permanent restraining order against Wang. Hartunian summoned the police on several occasions to deal with alleged violations of the order, and on one occasion effected a citizen’s arrest of Wang. Wang sued Hartunian alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and abuse of process among other causes of action. Hartunian’s special motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP was granted by the trial court, which concluded that Wang was not likely to prevail on his claims. The appellate court reverses, holding that a citizen’s arrest is not a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Wang v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
(2007, 4th District -153 Cal.App.4th 790, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 575) - Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi
(2006, 3d District – 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 633) - Plaintiffs sued defendants for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion and the court of appeal affirmed. On remand, the trial court awarded attorney fees for the work on appeal as well as for defendants’ challenge to plaintiffs’ undertaking to stay enforcement of the judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the award of attorney fees for the undertaking. The appellate court affirmed, finding that not permitting attorney fees for such efforts would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent to encourage continued participation in free speech and petition activities.
- Water for Citizens of Weed California v. Churchwell White LLC
(2023, 3d District – 88 Cal. App. 5th 270) - Weeden v. Hoffman
(2021, 4th District – 70 Cal.App.5th 269, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 262) - Weinberg v. Feisel
(2003, 3d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 385) - Weinberg sued Feisel for defamation, alleging that Feisel told others that Weinberg had stolen a valuable collector’s item. Feisel moved to strike the complaint as a SLAPP, contending that his statements accused plaintiff of criminal activity and that criminal activity is always a matter of public interest. The trial court denied the motion, noting that Feisel never reported his suspicions to law enforcement officials and offered no evidence that he intended to file civil charges against plaintiff. The appellate court affirms. The court concludes that nothing in the record supports even an arguable suggestion that Feisel’s statements constituted speech protected by the First Amendment and therefore plaintiff’s causes of action were not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute. “Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his dispute with plaintiff was anything other than a private dispute….”
- West v. Arent Fox LLP
(2015, 2d District – 237 Cal.App.4th 1065, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 729)(modified 6/26/15) - White v Davis
(2023, 4th District – 87 Cal. App. 5th 270) - White v. Lieberman
(2002, 2d District – 103 Cal.App.4th 210, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 608) - Attorney Lieberman represented homeowners in an action against White for slander of title, and the trial court found White liable. An appellate court reversed on the grounds the action was not supported by substantial evidence. Subsequently White sued Lieberman for malicious prosecution of the slander action. The trial court sustained Lieberman’s demurrer, but refused to consider Lieberman’s anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that it was moot in view of the successful demurrer. The appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in determining that Lieberman’s motion was moot. Because a malicious prosecution action is within the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute, and there is no possibility White can prevail, the only matter left for the trial court’s consideration is the amount of attorney fees. (See Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, where the same issue is decided similarly.)
- White v. Wear
(2022, 4th District – 76 Cal.App.5th 24) - Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 352, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 321) - Widders v. Furchtenicht
(2008, 2d District – 167 Cal.App.4th 769, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 428) - Wilbanks v. Wolk
(2004, 1st District -121 Cal.App.4th 883, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 497) - Brokerage firm sued Wolk, alleging Wolk had made defamatory statements about its business integrity on her website, where Wolk publishes information for the general public about a special type of life insurance policy brokered by plaintiffs. Wolk moved to strike the claim for defamation as a SLAPP; the trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reverses the ruling. The court agrees that the anti-SLAPP statute applies in this case but concludes that plaintiffs showed the requisite probability of prevailing on their claim for defamation.
- Wilcox v. Superior Court
(1994, 2d District – 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446) - Several court reporters brought suit against an alliance of court reporters, claiming unfair business practice and interference with plaintiffs’ existing contracts and prospective economic advantages. Defendants cross-complained for damages arising from a flyer circulated by the plaintiffs to raise money for litigation costs. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike the cross-complaint is reversed.
- Wilkerson v. Sullivan
(2002, 4th District – 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 275) - Plaintiffs appealed an order granting an anti-SLAPP motion but dismissed the appeal before it was decided. Defendant moved for an award of attorney fees in connection with the appeal but the court denied recovery of fees. Defendant appealed the denial. The court of appeal reverses, holding that defendants in a SLAPP are entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred in connection with defending the anti-SLAPP motion on appeal even when plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Once the trial court has granted an anti-SLAPP motion, the judicial decision that the action was a SLAPP remains intact unless reversed by the court of appeal and thus the defendant remains the “prevailing party” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 6 Cal.App.5th 822, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 724) - (Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded)
-
Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC
(2018, 1st District – 26 Cal.App.5th 239, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 25)Wisner v. Dignity Health
(2022, 3rd District – 85 Cal.App.5th 35, 300 Cal.Rptr.3d 359) - Witte v. Kaufman
(2006, 3d District – 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 790) - Wittenberg v. Bornstein
(2020, 1st District – 50 Cal.App.5th 303, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 677) - Wong v. Jing
(2010, 6th District – 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747) - The trial court denied an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a dentist’s claims of libel per se and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, filed against two parents and Yelp!, arising from a negative review on Yelp! regarding the dentist’s treatment of the parents’ child. The Court of Appeal held that six of the seven claims should have been dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law.
- Wong v. Wong
(2019, 1st District – 43 Cal.App.5th 358, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 624) - Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
(2021, 2nd District – 68 Cal.App.5th 624, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 507) - Workman v. Colichman
(2019, 2d District – 33 Cal.App.5th 1039, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 636) - World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc.
(2009, 2d District – 172 Cal.App.4th 1561, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 227)
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.