§Why CasetextPricing

Response Reply

undefined

11 Cited authorities

  1. Baral v. Schnitt

    1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 851 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim "supported by allegations of protected and unprotected activity in a single cause of action," cannot "escape[] review if the [non-moving party] shows a probability of prevailing on the allegations that are not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute"

  2. City of Cotati v. Cashman

    29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,249 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the mere fact an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean it arose from that activity"; rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiff's complaint "arose" from defendant's having previously filed lawsuit, where plaintiff's complaint "contain[ed] no reference to the [defendant's] action"

  3. Sungho Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.

    2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 594 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in deciding whether the "arising from" requirement is met, "courts should consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability"

  4. Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Associates

    160 Cal.App.4th 1467 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 226 times
    Holding that the filing of an unlawful detainer action and the posting of notices that are prerequisites to maintaining such an action are "indisputably" subject to anti-SLAPP protection

  5. Birkner v. Lam

    156 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that that the service of a termination notice was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute where the record demonstrated that the plaintiffs' "sole basis for liability" in each of the alleged causes of action "was the service of a termination notice, pursuant to Rent Ordinance, and [the defendant's] refusal to rescind it after [the plaintiffs] informed him that they constituted a protected household."

  6. Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc.

    182 Cal.App.4th 1644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 129 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Flatley court's use of the word "'illegal' was intended to mean criminal, and not merely violative of a statute"

  7. Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

    236 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "communicative activities of counsel" fell within the litigation privilege where they "were made in or in anticipation of judicial proceedings" to achieve "the objects of the litigation and had some connection or logical relation to the litigation"

  8. Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn.

    136 Cal.App.4th 464 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that actions taken in anticipation of proceedings before the WCAB were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine

  9. Zucchet v. Galardi

    229 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 45 times
    In Zucchet, the issue was whether a cooperating codefendant who gave false information to prosecutors and testified at trial was actively instrumental in causing the prosecution.

  10. Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

    215 Cal.App.4th 1237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 39 times
    Reversing order granting motion to strike declaratory relief and breach of contract complaint, as the gravamen of the complaint was a dispute about rights and obligations under a lease, not the service of a three-day notice to quit and filing of an unlawful detainer action