Grogan v. Paolella, et al.

Court's Decision on Opposition to Anti-SLAPP motion


Plaintiff sued defendant (in addition to others) for defamation. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion. He specifically argued that Plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure, and that Plaintiff could not demonstrate constitutional malice. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the anti-SLAPP. The court agreed that the Plaintiff had made the required showing under the SLAPP statute. Thus, the court denied Defendant's motion.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Decision | State, 9th Circuit, California | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Adrianos M. Facchetti, LAW OFFICES OF ADRIANOS M. FACCHETTI | Attorney Advertising

Written by:



Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.