Full Answer
Jun 14, 2018 · The practical import of the court’s holding is that a defendant may not file an anti-SLAPP motion in response to an amended complaint on causes of action included in the original complaint if the motion is filed more than 60 days after the original complaint was filed. Id. at 643–45. The court reasoned that the anti-SLAPP statute ...
American Civil Rights Coalition, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, which held that the 30-day period in which to schedule a hearing on an anti-SLAPP motion is jurisdictional. 2009 — The statute was amended to add section 425.16 (c) (2), which provides that a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion may not be awarded fees on claims of ...
Apr 13, 2020 · In doing so, the Legislature confirmed its intent that an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion on non-section-425.17 grounds automatically stays further trial court proceedings on the merits. Cal.App.4th 1179, and hold that an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays further trial court proceedings on the merits.
Sep 25, 2017 · Singletary, 206 Cal. App. 4th 751 (2012), the Court of Appeal concluded the prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion was entitled to recover attorney fees even though the motion resolved only two of four causes of action. Voluntary dismissal before an anti-SLAPP motion is heard does not moot potential fee recovery. Sylmar Air Conditioning v.
This motion (also called an “anti-SLAPP motion”) generally must be filed 60 days from the date the complaint is served (received), and is the best way to put an end to a SLAPP early in the proceedings. Filing an anti-SLAPP motion is also considered a first responsive pleading (as discussed above).
The California anti-SLAPP statute gives you the ability to file a motion to strike (i.e., to dismiss) a complaint brought against you for engaging in protected speech or petition activity (discussed above). If you are served with a complaint that you believe to be a SLAPP, you should seek legal assistance immediately.
And in both cases, the plaintiff or an amicus supporting the plaintiff has asked the Ninth Circuit to hold that California's anti-SLAPP law does not apply in federal court, notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit's repeated reaffirmance of the Planned Parenthood framework.16 Mar 2022
1992CA Statutes California's anti-SLAPP statute provides for a special motion to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from activity exercising the rights of petition and free speech. The statute was first enacted in 1992.
When a defendant makes an anti-SLAPP motion against a complaint, the loss of even one cause of action requires the trial court to grant fees to the defense. Inclusion of marginal or arguably duplicative claims (such as intentional infliction of emotional distress in a libel complaint) will result in an award of fees.
e result is that at least for now, the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion remains immediately appealable in both California courts and the Ninth Circuit. Defendants whose anti- SLAPP motion is denied therefore should immediately assess whether to appeal, just as in state court.
It is governed by limiting language in section 425.16, which allows a defendant to file an anti-SLAPP motion only “within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has split with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and concluded that California's statute to avoid strategic lawsuits against public participation (anti-SLAPP) does not apply in federal court.16 Jul 2020
To win an anti-SLAPP motion: “[F]irst, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's 'cause of action . . . aris[es] from' an act by the defendant 'in furtherance of the [defendant's] right of petition or free speech . . . in connection with a public issue.2 Apr 2019
A key feature of anti-SLAPP laws is the automatic stay of discovery upon filing of an anti-SLAPP motion. The stay was designed to save defendants the expense and burden of responding to discovery necessitated by frivolous lawsuits. However, the stay is unavailable in federal court.
SLAPPs are often brought by businesses, government bodies, or elected officials against those who oppose them on issues of public concern. In the case of a business interest, the filers may be seeking to protect an economic interest.
Once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, all of these discovery processes are stayed, unless the plaintiff obtains an order permitting specified discovery for good cause shown.
TCPA movant is required to file its motion on or before the 60th day from the date the “legal action” was served. The court may extend this deadline on a showing of good cause. For actions filed on or after September 1, 2019, the parties may extend the deadline upon mutual agreement. Failure to timely file a TCPA motion is a proper basis for its denial.
The trial court must rule on the TCPA motion within 30 days of the hearing. If the court does not rule by that deadline, then the motion is deemed overruled by operation of law. Under the prior statute, the deadline to rule ran from the hearing date, implying the hearing must be concluded on a single date. Effective September 1, 2019, the deadline runs from the date the hearing “concludes,” implying that trial courts may conduct subsequent proceedings, if necessary, without being hamstrung by the deadline to rule. Under this new language, it will be important to make the record clear about the date on which the hearing “concludes,” and to ensure that the conclusion of the hearing occurs within the hearing deadlines discussed above:
The TCPA sets forth a three-part burden shifting analysis to determine whether the motion should be granted or denied, in whole or in part. Several amendments made in 2019 effect the burdens at each step, as discussed below.
The TCPA hearing must originally be “set” on or before 60 days from the date of service of the motion. This setting may be continued for the hearing “to occur” up to 90 days later based on the court’s docket conditions, or for good cause, or upon the agreement of the parties. Additionally, the hearing may be extended “to occur” up to 120 days later to allow for discovery. These provisions were not amended in 2019:
First, the movant must establish that the proceeding it seeks to dismiss is a “legal action” as defined by the TCPA. Second, it must establish the requisite nexus between the legal action and its allegedly protected rights. Third, the movant must establish that its communications/conduct fall within one of the statutorily-defined protected rights. Each step is discussed in more detail below.
Under the prior version of the statute, there were three protected rights: free speech, petition, and association; and they were all defined as a form of “communication.” Effective September 1, 2019, the right of association is no longer expressly defined in terms of a “communication,” and new categories of protected rights have been added (aka the “exclusions to exemptions”).
The commercial speech exemption has been, by far, the most frequently invoked exemption to date. The Texas Supreme Court clarified the four essential elements of this exemption in Castleman v. Internet Money, 546 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. 2018): (1) the defendant/movant was primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods [or services], (2) the defendant/movant made the statement or engaged in the conduct on which the claim is based in the defendant's capacity as a seller or lessor of those goods or services, (3) the statement or conduct at issue arose out of a commercial transaction involving the kind of goods or services the defendant/movant provides, and (4) the intended audience of the statement or conduct were actual or potential customers of the defendant/movant for the kind of goods or services the defendant provides.