Anti-SLAPP Issues Pending In California Supreme Court
USE NOTE: The information in this bulletin, including the framing of the issue presented, is taken from the California Supreme Court’s official website. Citations to the court of appeal's opinion are for informational purposes only. The grant of review automatically vacates the opinion, which cannot be cited as precedent.
New CCP 425.17. Can the exception to the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16) for actions brought "solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public" (CCP 425.17) apply to a complaint that includes any claim for personal relief? Club Member for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, S 143087, formerly at 137 Cal.App.4th 1166, review granted 6/21/06.
B & P section 17200 and anti-SLAPP. Whether all of plaintiffs’ section 17200 causes of action, based on dental association’s course of conduct relating to the health controversy over the safety of mercury amalgam fillings, are subject to a special motion to strike. Kids Against Pollution v. California Dental Association, S117156, formerly at 108 Cal.App.4th 1003, review granted 9/17/03.
Prima facie case. On an anti-SLAPP motion against authors and investigators of articles relating to alleged recovery of repressed memories of child abuse, did the court properly conclude plaintiff established a prima facie case supporting some of her claims for invasion of privacy and defamation? Taus v. Loftus, S133805. unpublished opinion, review granted 6/22/05.
Illegal conduct. When a plaintiff files a cause of action based upon illegal conduct (e.g., extortion) allegedly engaged in by the defendant in relation to prior litigation, is the plaintiff’s action subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute? Flatley v. Mauro, S128429, formerly at 121 Cal.App.4th 1523, review granted 12/15/04. OPINION ISSUED 7/27/06, CREATING EXCEPTION FOR CONDUCT ILLEGAL "AS A MATTER OF LAW." For slip opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S128429.PDF
Malicious prosecution & anti-SLAPP. Is a cause of action for malicious prosecution subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) if the underlying action that allegedly was maliciously prosecuted was itself dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike under that statute? Soukup v. Stock, S126864, formerly at 118 Cal.App.4th 1490, review granted 10/20/04; Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, S126715, unpublished opinion, review granted 10/20//04. OPINION ISSUED 7/27/06: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S126715.PDF
Peer review as "official proceeding." Is an action arising out of the hospital peer review mandated by B & P § 809, (a)(8), subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute because such review is an “official proceeding” or implicates a public issue or issue of public interest within the meaning of CCP § 425.16 (e)(2) and (e)(4)? Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., S131641, formerly at 126 Cal.App.4th 713, review granted 4/27/05. ANSWER: YES, opinion issued 7/19/06: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S131641A.PDF
Anti-SLAPP attorney fees. Does a trial court have jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute if the action was voluntarily dismissed before the special motion to strike was filed? S. B. Beach Properties v. Berti, S127513, formerly at 120 Cal.App.4th 1001, review granted 10/27/04.
Litigation privilege. Is a local ordinance prohibiting a landlord from maliciously taking action to terminate a tenancy “based upon facts which the landlord has no reasonable cause to believe to be true or upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to the landlord” preempted by the statewide litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), because the ordinance applies to communicative acts? Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, S129448, formerly at 123 Cal.App.4th 47, review granted 2/16/05.
Prima facie case. On an anti-SLAPP motion against authors and investigators of articles relating to alleged recovery of repressed memories of child abuse, did the court properly conclude plaintiff established a prima facie case supporting some of her claims for invasion of privacy and defamation? Taus v. Loftus, S133805. unpublished opinion, review granted 6/22/05.
Illegal conduct. When a plaintiff files a cause of action based upon illegal conduct (e.g., extortion) allegedly engaged in by the defendant in relation to prior litigation, is the plaintiff’s action subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute? Flatley v. Mauro, S128429, formerly at 121 Cal.App.4th 1523, review granted 12/15/04. OPINION ISSUED 7/27/06, CREATING EXCEPTION FOR CONDUCT ILLEGAL "AS A MATTER OF LAW." For slip opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S128429.PDF
Malicious prosecution & anti-SLAPP. Is a cause of action for malicious prosecution subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) if the underlying action that allegedly was maliciously prosecuted was itself dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike under that statute? Soukup v. Stock, S126864, formerly at 118 Cal.App.4th 1490, review granted 10/20/04; Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, S126715, unpublished opinion, review granted 10/20//04. OPINION ISSUED 7/27/06: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S126715.PDF
Peer review as "official proceeding." Is an action arising out of the hospital peer review mandated by B & P § 809, (a)(8), subject to a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute because such review is an “official proceeding” or implicates a public issue or issue of public interest within the meaning of CCP § 425.16 (e)(2) and (e)(4)? Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., S131641, formerly at 126 Cal.App.4th 713, review granted 4/27/05. ANSWER: YES, opinion issued 7/19/06: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S131641A.PDF
Anti-SLAPP attorney fees. Does a trial court have jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorney fees under the anti-SLAPP statute if the action was voluntarily dismissed before the special motion to strike was filed? S. B. Beach Properties v. Berti, S127513, formerly at 120 Cal.App.4th 1001, review granted 10/27/04.
Litigation privilege. Is a local ordinance prohibiting a landlord from maliciously taking action to terminate a tenancy “based upon facts which the landlord has no reasonable cause to believe to be true or upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to the landlord” preempted by the statewide litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), because the ordinance applies to communicative acts? Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, S129448, formerly at 123 Cal.App.4th 47, review granted 2/16/05.
