Navellier v. Sletten

Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

Baral v. Schnitt

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"

Wilson v. Parker, Covert Chidester

Finding that denial of a motion for nonsuit establishes the plaintiff can substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence to support a favorable verdict

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.

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.

Yeager v. Bowlin

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)

Gilbert v. Sykes

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

Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula

Holding that "an issue of public interest" is "any issue in which the public is interested" and concluding that an article about a "prominent businessman and celebrity" met the standard

Rand Res., LLC v. City of Carson

Rejecting the proposition that "any connection at all—however fleeting or tangential—between the challenged conduct and an issue of public interest would suffice to satisfy the requirements [subdivision (e)(4) ]" because "[a]t a sufficiently high level of generalization, any conduct can appear rationally related to a broader issue of public importance"

Weinberg v. Feisel

Holding that statements by defendant who published advertisement in token collecting newsletter circulated to 700 members that plaintiff had stolen valuable item from defendant did not involve matter of public interest

Wilbanks v. Wolk

Holding that defendant's anti-SLAPP motion failed on the second prong, even under the more defendant-friendly version of that analysis which applies in state court

Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

Rule 2.251 - Electronic service