See also Estate ofMcDill (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 831, 837-838 : "The failure of the Legislature to change the law in a particular respect whenthe subject is generally before it and changesin other respects are madeis indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended." There is no dispute that the Vargas opinion soundly rejected the very arguments again put forth by Amici: In view ofthis legislative purpose and history, as well as the language of section 425.16, subdivision (e) and section 425.18, subdivision (i), discussed above, we conclude that section 425.16 may not be interpreted to exclude governmentalentities and public officials from its potential protection. Accordingly, we agree with the numerous Court ofAppeal decisions cited above (ante, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 296-297, 205 P.3d at p. 216) that have reached this same conclusion.

” (Rand Resources, LLC vy. City of Carson, supra, 247 Cal.App.4"at 1095.) Regarding the allegations in the purported Fourth Cause of Action, the lower court found that “[t]he gravamen of the fourth cause of action with respect to the City is, as with the second andthird cause ofaction, the City’s violation of the terms of the EAA by allowing someoneother than Rand Resources to act as its agent with respect to efforts to bring an NFL franchise to the City and the manner in which the City conducteditself in relation to the business transaction between it and Rand Resources, not the City’s exercise of free speech or petitioning activity.... As to Dear, his [alleged] statement that he did not know Bloom wasnot a matter of public interest and did not constitute free speech or petitioning activity protected by section 425.16.” (Rand Resources, LLC, supra, 247 Cal.App.4" at 1095-96.)

While Defendants are offering these defenses in their motion papers, the burden remains upon Plaintiffs to establish their case. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16(b)(1). Plaintiffs also cannot prevail on their malicious prosecution claim under the holding of Solin v. O’Melveny & Myers, 89 Cal. App. 4th 451 (2001).

Section 17200 (Count VI) is GRANTED, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. NextG’s Special Motion to Strike NewPath’s Counterclaim for Intentional Case 3:08-cv-01565-VRW Document 18-2 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHS West:260453467.1 - 2 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NEXTG NETWORK, INC.'S MOTIONS C 08-1565 VRW Interference with a Contractual Relationship (Count IV) is GRANTED, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. 9. NextG’s Special Motion to Strike NewPath’s Fifth Counterclaim for Negligent Interference with a Business Expectancy (Count V) is GRANTED, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. 10. NextG’s Special Motion to Strike NewPath’s Sixth Counterclaim for Unfair Competition under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (Count VI) is GRANTED, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 11. The following be stricken from NewPath’s Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims: a. In Paragraph 1, the words “Through its counterclaims, Counterclaimant NewPath seeks redress for Plaintiff’s knowing misuse of the ‘256 Patent.”; b. Paragraph 75 in its entirety; c. Paragraph 76 in its entirety; d. Paragraph 77 in its entirety; e. Paragraph 78 in its entirety; f. The words “inequitable conduct” in Paragraph 119 b.; g. Paragraph 129 in its entirety; h. The word “fraudulent” in Paragraph 162; i. The word “fraudulent” in Paragraph 165; j. NewPath’s Counterclaim for Intentional Interference with a Contractual Relationship (Count IV); k. NewPath’s Counterclaim for Negligent Interference with a Business Expectancy (Count V); and l. NewPath’s Counterclaim for Unfair Competition Under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (Count VI).

400] AND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT [DOC. 435] Date: January 9, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Ctrm: 350 W. 1st St - 7C Trial Date: March 28, 2017 Case 2:15-cv-02964-BRO-AJW Document 487-1 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:14876 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Elinor Shapiro ("Shapiro") has filed a Special Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Defendant’s Ex Parte Application and Motion for Contempt under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (“Anti-SLAPP Law”). Shapiro has shown that the motion had the effect of chilling Shapiro, her counsel, and third- party Robert Grad (“Mr. Grad”) from exercising their First Amendment rights to petition and speech.

A prevailing defendant is entitled to a mandatory fee award. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c). A prevailing plaintiff may recover fees only if “a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”

I am an employee of Valle Makoff LLP, and my business address is 11911 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 324, Los Angeles, California 90049. On the date set forth below, I served the following document(s) described as follows: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF CARLSON LYNCH SWEET AND KILPELA LLP AND KAMBERLAW, LLC’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (ANTI-SLAPP MOTION UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 425.16) on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiff SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations GREGORY F. HURLEY MICHAEL J. CHILLEEN BRAD LEIMKUHLER 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Email:MChilleen@sheppardmullin.com, GHurley@sheppardmullin.com, bleimkuhler@sheppardmullin.com, lhall@sheppardmullin.com, cstrand@sheppardmullin.com  BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and the fact that the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business; on this date, the above-referenced document was placed for deposit at Los Angeles, California and placed for collection and delivery following ordinary business practices.  BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION:

As a result, in this limited situation, the exception from the requirement for judicial exhaustion applicable to a sec- tion 1278.5 whistleblower cause of action also applies to the additional allegations of bad faith and the request for additional declaratory relief in the second cause of ac- tion. For all these reasons, we conclude that Fahlen has met his burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1), of establishing that he will prevail on the first and second causes of action. We con- clude, however, the exhaustion ofjudicial remedies doc- trine does apply to the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.

-lil- If the Court ofAppeal’s interpretation is adopted, it is fair to say that the special anti-SLAPP motionto strike will no longer be a viable option for responding to many lawsuits arising from protected speech and conduct. Given that the purpose of section 425.16 is to allow these motions to avoid unnecessary expense to taxpayers, the League and CSACurgethis Court to reject the Court ofAppeal’s interpretation and affirm the trial court’s decision. Dated: February 23, 2017 Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 1600 Iowa Avenue, Suite 250 Riverside, CA 92507-7426 By: Mey toe ThomasB.

I am an employee of Valle Makoff LLP, and my business address is 11911 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 324, Los Angeles, California 90049. On the date set forth below, I served the following document(s) described as follows: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 425.16 on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiff SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations GREGORY F. HURLEY MICHAEL J. CHILLEEN BRAD LEIMKUHLER 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Email:MChilleen@sheppardmullin.com, GHurley@sheppardmullin.com, bleimkuhler@sheppardmullin.com, lhall@sheppardmullin.com, cstrand@sheppardmullin.com  BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Per the Court’s “Electronic Filing and Service Standing Order,” I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the email addresses listed with the Court in this matter.