Anti-SLAPP

News & Analysis as of

Are We Witnessing A Pushback By Courts To Anti-SLAPP Motions?

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the date the DC anti-SLAPP statute became effective, recent decisions have me wondering if we are witnessing increased hostility against anti-SLAPP statutes nationwide?...more

High Court Reviews Protected Activity Under SLAPP Statute

In yet another installment of the gravamen of the complaint conundrum, the California Supreme Court is currently reviewing Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1258. The issue is...more

Five Key Lessons for Business Litigators from National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress

On February 5, 2016, Morrison & Foerster secured a preliminary injunction on behalf of its client, National Abortion Federation (“NAF”), in National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress. The firm’s work on this...more

2015: A Year-End Review of Litigation Using California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

Annually, California’s Courts of Appeal and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regularly issue several dozen published opinions interpreting California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Civil Procedure Section 425.16 et seq., and...more

Rehitching the Horse: Oregon Court of Appeals Adjusts the Anti-SLAPP Cart

Although Oregon is in its 15th year of anti-SLAPP litigation under a decidedly robust statute, no Oregon appellate court had ruled on how to decide when Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute applies until the recent decision in Mullen...more

State Supreme Court Strikes Down Washington’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

The Washington Supreme Court in May struck down the state’s 2010 anti-SLAPP statute, holding in a unanimous opinion that the law violates the state constitution’s right to a jury trial and is invalid on its face. The...more

D.C. Circuit Rules Anti-SLAPP Law Inapplicable in Federal Court, Highlighting Need for Federal Anti-SLAPP Law

In April, the D.C. Circuit held that the District of Columbia anti-SLAPP statute does not apply in a federal court diversity case because “Federal Rules 12 and 56 answer the same question as the anti-SLAPP Act’s special...more

Is There a “Classic” SLAPP Case?

One of the interesting things about the Doe v. Burke II appeal is the Superior Court’s reasoning that, although the complaint was dismissed under the DC anti-SLAPP statute, no attorneys’ fees were warranted because the case...more

SLAPP Statute and the Mixed Cause of Action

The California Supreme Court is reviewing the mixed cause of action conundrum in Baral v. Schnitt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1423. According to the Court’s docket, the issue is whether the SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure...more

Real Property, Financial Services & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending January 15, 2016 (and bonus opinion from January 20)

REAL PROPERTY UPDATE - Amendment to Foreclosure Rules and Forms: Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.115 and Forms 1.944 and 1.996 to conform with § 702.015, Fla. Stat. (2015) and “expedite...more

Checklist: Does the Anti-SLAPP Statute Apply?

An anti-SLAPP motion to strike is generally available when one of the causes of action in a case is based on an act of a person in furtherance of the person’s constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with...more

Another Court Imposes a “Public Interest” Requirement for anti-SLAPP motions

After my post on the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision, requiring all motions under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute to be based upon speech made in connection with an issue of public interest, a reader sent me a decision from a...more

Is there a “Public Interest” Requirement for anti-SLAPP Motions?

Does a party moving under the DC anti-SLAPP statute need to show that the claim arises from a statement made in connection with an issue of public interest?  While the text of the DC anti-SLAPP statute suggests the answer is...more

Top Posts of 2015

In descending order, here were the top posts from 2015. #7 Will Net Neutrality Kill the Internet 3.0? In February, the FCC passed the net neutrality rules. This seems like one of those issues, like most, that seemed...more

Governmental entities and anti-SLAPP statutes

Earlier this year, in Henne v. City of Yakima, the Washington State Supreme Court held that the City of Yakima could not move under that state’s anti-SLAPP statute where it was the recipient – rather than speaker – of the...more

Online Negativity: How to Fight Back

The internet is a powerful channel for communication, with great strengths compared to other media. It has been referred to as the "largest public space in human history”. Internet communications can reach an unlimited...more

Fourth Age Limited v. Warner Bros. Digital Distribution Inc. - USCA, Ninth Circuit, October 28, 2015

Ninth Circuit affirms district court’s holding that Warner Bros. can assert counterclaims against estate of J.R.R. Tolkien in action over right to make digital merchandise based on Tolkien’s books, as counterclaims were...more

Everything You Need to Know About Ontario's New Anti-SLAPP Law

On October 28, 2015, the government of Ontario passed the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 (PPA), designed to identify and eliminate strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). The PPA is the result...more

That’s TheWrap: A Change In California Law To Protect Online Media Publications

A dispute involving an online media publisher has prompted California’s Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown to revise California’s libel law, in an effort to protect such publishers. California’s Civil Code Section 48a...more

When Can A Successful Movant Recover Fees Under the DC Anti-SLAPP Statute?

The first time Burke v. Doe was before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, it established new law, with the Court establishing that the denial of a special motion to dismiss was immediately appealable.  Burke II is now...more

Can Kim Davis Be Fired? What CA Employers Should Know About Religious Accommodations

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that same-sex marriages are a fundamental liberty protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – and that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples....more

Top Ten International Anti-Corruption Developments for August 2015

In order to provide an overview for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals, we summarize below some of the most important international anti-corruption developments in the past month, with links to primary...more

Texas Anti-SLAPP Law: The Expanding Scope of the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act – Part 5 (the conclusion)

To conclude the series, we look at one more opinion — Serafine v. Blunt, No. 03-12-00726-CV, 2015 WL 2061922 (Tex. App.—Austin May 1, 2015). This case dealt with a property dispute, but the real interest comes from the...more

Texas Anti-SLAPP Law: The Expanding Scope of the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act – Part 4 – A decision in Schlumberger, sort of

Since we published Part 3 that discussed the details of an interesting case here in Houston, Schlumberger v. Rutherford, the First Court of Appeals issued its opinion on Tuesday. The best description of the decision is a...more

Summary of California Appellate Decisions -August 2015

Insurance; Duty To Defend; Insurance Coverage; Intentional Acts; Sexual Misconduct - Gonzalez v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1220, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 394 (WL 960927) - Facts: This is an...more

141 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6

"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.
×