Beginning today, the California Anti-SLAPP Project will highlight some of the top stories on the web discussing California’s anti-SLAPP law. CASP’s SLAPP Blog will not only be a resource for lawyers and the general public to read in depth analyses of cases and issues around California’s anti-SLAPP law, but it will also be a resource to keep you up to date on the most recent stories on the web discussing California’s anti-SLAPP law.
Here are some of the top stories from the past two weeks:
Judge Set to Toss David Bergstein Suit Against Hollywood Law Firms (Exclusive) (from the Hollywood Reporter, September 20, 2012)
-In a tentative decision issued in advance of a hearing next week, Judge Michael P. Linfield wrote that he is inclined to rule in favor of the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, in a lawsuit filed by embattled film financier David Bergstein against two of Aramid Entertainment’s law firms, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and Levene Neale Bender Yoo & Brill.
Court of Appeal Upholds a $54,000 Fee Award to Century City Attorney Sued for Client-Snatching (from Metropolitan News-Enterprise, September 19, 2012)
-The CA Court of Appeal upheld an award of $54,208.28 to a lawyer who was sued by another lawyer for stealing her clients, affirming the decision of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Malcolm Mackey. Mackey granted an anti-SLAPP motion filed by Century City attorney Joseph Yanny of Yanny and Smith, dismissed the action against him, and awarded the fees. Yanny represented himself, along with Mark Goldowitz and Paul Clifford of the California Anti-SLAPP Project.
CA Court Concludes Form 8-K Filing Is Not An “Official Proceeding” – Why It Matters (from JDSupra, September 14, 2012)
-In Hawran v. Stylli, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s decision to let stand a former company officer’s causes of action for defamation, invasion of privacy, and unfair business practices against his former employer. The officer’s claims arose from a Form 8-K and press release issued by the company announcing the officer’s decision to resign. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the employer was not entitled to any of the privileges set forth in Civil Code Section 47, including the privilege for “official proceedings” in Section 47(b)(3).
Pointing Out Possible Hypocrisy by a Self-Claimed Sextortion Expert Protected by Anti-SLAPP Laws–Backlund v. Stone (from Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog, September 13, 2012)
-Blog post discussing recent CA Court of Appeal decision, Backlund v. Stone. Excerpt: “When is it OK to tweet a threat to expose seminude photographs of a teenage girl? When you’re a law student? When you’re a self-professed expert on “sextortion”? The answer is: in neither case (if you answered “never,” you’d be right as well).”