Ruling by
James A. RichmanLower Court
San Francisco County Superior CourtA defendant must show that a complaint alleges acts arising from privileged activities in order to challenge a cause of action pursuant to an anti-SLAPP motion.
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Civil Litigation, California Courts of Appeal, Appellate Practice
Pursuing frivolous anti-SLAPP appeals is a dangerous game
Jan. 22, 2018
By Kelly Woodruff
By Kelly Woodruff
Civil Litigation, California Courts of Appeal, Appellate Practice
Anti-SLAPP appeals: extensions and civility are not bad faith
Feb. 7, 2018
By Don Willenburg
By Don Willenburg
