§Why CasetextPricing

Tom H. Talebi vs. Adrian Gonzalez

Opposition

13 Cited authorities

  1. Equilon Enterprises, Llc. v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

    29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,799 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting under the Anti-SLAPP statute without a showing of the plaintiff's "intent to chill" free speech did not violate the Constitution or "inappropriately punish plaintiffs," especially given that a plaintiff is burdened by payment of attorney fees "only when the plaintiff burdens free speech with an unsubstantiated claim"

  2. Flatley v. Mauro

    39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,331 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP protection is not available where the "assertedly protected speech or petition activity [is] illegal as a matter of law"

  3. Wilcox v. Superior Court

    27 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 410 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "probability" is equivalent to a "reasonable probability" of prevailing

  4. Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim

    42 Cal.App.4th 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 338 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that matters of public interest "include product liability suits, real estate or investment scams, etc."

  5. Weinberg v. Feisel

    110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 266 times
    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

  6. Robertson v. Rodriguez

    36 Cal.App.4th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 131 times
    Applying clear and convincing standard of proof where plaintiff had to prove actual malice by that standard

  7. Dixon v. Superior Court

    30 Cal.App.4th 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 52 times
    In Dixon v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 743 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 687], the court found that allegedly defamatory letters written by an archaeology professor to university officials criticizing an archaeological consultant were made in connection with the public review of a proposed negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act.

  8. Ca. Phy. Service v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.App.4th 1321 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that "[d]efensive pleading . . . is communication protected by the absolute litigation privilege"

  9. Ericsson Ge Mobile Communications, Inc. v. C.S.I. Telecommunications Engineers

    49 Cal.App.4th 1591 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 30 times
    Performing contractual obligations

  10. Linsco/Private Ledger, Inc. v. Investors Arbitration Services, Inc.

    50 Cal.App.4th 1633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 7 times

    Docket Nos. A071935, A071936. November 25, 1996. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Nos. 968453 and 968454, David A. Garcia, Judge. COUNSEL Zelle Larson, David S. Markun, Craig M. Hughes and Brian E. Mahoney for Plaintiffs and Appellants. R. King Prothro, Jr., and John R. Bobay for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION DOSSEE, J. We have consolidated for purposes of argument and decision two identical appeals arising from separate but virtually identical lawsuits seeking

  11. Section 2203 - Foreign corporation which transacts intrastate business without valid certificate

    Cal. Corp. Code § 2203   Cited 57 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Barring a corporation that conducts intrastate business without registering with the Secretary of State from maintaining "any action or proceeding upon any intrastate business so transacted" in any court in California

  12. Section 23304.1 - Voidable contracts

    Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 23304.1   Cited 49 times

    (a) Every contract made in this state by a taxpayer during the time that the taxpayer's powers, rights, and privileges are suspended or forfeited pursuant to Section 23301, 23301.5, or 23775 shall, subject to Section 23304.5, be voidable at the request of any party to the contract other than the taxpayer. (b) If a foreign taxpayer that neither is qualified to do business nor has an account number from the Franchise Tax Board, fails to file a tax return required under this part, any contract made