§Why CasetextPricing

Motion Dismiss

undefined

15 Cited authorities

  1. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,936 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

  2. Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.

    7 Cal.5th 871 (Cal. 2019)   Cited 344 times   9 Legal Analyses
    In Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th 871, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 444 P.3d 706, we acknowledged that some staffing decisions by a news organization in the business of speaking on matters of public importance to the public, specifically those tied to selecting individuals with control over the organization's message, might qualify as conduct in furtherance of the organization's speech on matters of public importance.

  3. Yeager v. Bowlin

    693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 339 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court can apply sham affidavit rule to "prevent[] a party who has been examined at length on deposition from raising an issue of fact simply by submitting an affidavit contradicting h[er] own prior testimony." (quotations and alterations omitted)

  4. Gilbert v. Sykes

    147 Cal.App.4th 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 307 times
    Holding prominent plastic surgeon, who alleged former patient made defamatory statements as to her surgery, was limited purpose public figure with respect to his "surgical practice"; rejecting surgeon's argument that relevant controversy was limited to particular patient's treatment

  5. Bravo v. Ismaj

    99 Cal.App.4th 211 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 171 times
    Illustrating that vexatious litigants are those "persistent and obsessive" litigants who file "groundless actions"

  6. Traditional Cat Assn. Inc. v. Gilbreath

    118 Cal.App.4th 392 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding plaintiffs' claim barred by statute of limitations

  7. Chaker v. Mateo

    209 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 83 times
    Finding "derogatory statements about [the plaintiff] and his business" on Ripoffreport.com and other online fora were of public interest

  8. Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt, and Chiurazzi

    141 Cal.App.4th 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants could seek their attorney fees incurred in opposing a stay of enforcement of a judgment awarding attorney fees under § 425.16, subd. (c)

  9. Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Ass'n

    12 Cal.App.5th 1300 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 10 times
    Examining vexatious litigant's in pro per filings separately from those of a corporation with which she tried to jointly file

  10. Francis v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

    3 Cal.App.4th 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defamation claim cannot be sustained for truthful information in a credit report, even if the information reported supports misleading inferences

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007