§Why CasetextPricing

Harmoni International Spice, Inc. et al v. Wenxuan Bai et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike The Second through Sixth Claims of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 Amended Complaint/Petition 26 39

26 Cited authorities

  1. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,920 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

  2. Flatley v. Mauro

    39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,323 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. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif

    39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,151 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the question is whether "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited" (citation and punctuation omitted)

  4. City of Cotati v. Cashman

    29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,265 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"

  5. Silberg v. Anderson

    50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 1,015 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the litigation privilege applied, even after the finality of a marriage dissolution decree, to an attorney who made statements during a marriage dissolution proceeding

  6. Hilton v. Hallmark Cards

    580 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 235 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pendent jurisdiction is unavailable over a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b) in an appeal from a denial of a motion to strike under an anti-SLAPP statute

  7. Freeman v. Schack

    154 Cal.App.4th 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 205 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the anti-SLAPP statute is inapplicable to a malpractice claim for "undertaking to represent a party with interests adverse to plaintiffs, in violation of the duty of loyalty he assertedly owed them"

  8. Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar

    611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 165 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding registration of another's trademark was attempt to exert ownership over property

  9. Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.

    660 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 150 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(d) is a proper ground for denying relief

  10. Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc.

    74 Cal.App.4th 1359 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that the fact that an "at-will" express term was not an integrated contract "does not render [it] . . . any less significant to this case"

  11. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,772 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  12. Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16   Cited 2,833 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

  13. Section 518 - Extortion

    Cal. Pen. Code § 518   Cited 349 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that extortion is the obtaining property through the use of force or fear