| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 
 24-2626 
 | 
Gopher Media LLC v. Melone
 Orders denying motions to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute are not immediately appealable and do not satisfy the requirements for an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Murguia | Oct. 10, 2025 | 
| 
 A170591 
 | 
Ahmed v. Collect Access, LLC 
 Because plaintiff's uncorroborated declaration denying residence and service was sufficient to show minimal merit, trial court's anti-SLAPP dismissal was erroneous.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Goldman | Oct. 7, 2025 | 
| 
 B332962 
 | 
Byrne v. Rule
 Suit to enforce Brown Act closed-session confidentiality fell within anti-SLAPP public-interest exception.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Municipal Law | 
 | 
T. Cody | Aug. 27, 2025 | 
| 
 G063037 
 | 
Sandoval v. Pali Institute
 Trial court erred in completely denying camping company's anti-SLAPP motion when some of plaintiff camp attendees' claims involved protected "public debate" speech: gender-identity discussions.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Education | 
 | 
T. Delaney | Aug. 15, 2025 | 
| 
 B340986 
 | 
Ramirez v. McCormack
 Because plaintiff's claims against defendant attorney involved litigation-related speech, trial court erred in denying defendant attorney's anti-SLAPP motion.  | 
Attorneys, Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Wiley | Aug. 12, 2025 | 
| 
 A169917  
 | 
Michael K. v. Cho 
 Attorney's rebuttal contesting client's husband's chargeback challenge to her legal fees was protected by litigation privilege under the anti-SLAPP statute.  | 
Attorneys, Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
G. Burns | Jul. 30, 2025 | 
| 
 A171466 
 | 
Wong v. Dong
 Interlocutory appeal was unavailable from order denying special motion to strike malicious prosecution claim subsequently filed by original target of a strategic lawsuit against public participation.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Civil Procedure | 
 | 
G. Burns | Jun. 24, 2025 | 
| 
 A169997 
 | 
Mora v. Menjivar
 A supporting memorandum of points and authorities is a necessary constituent part of a "special motion" for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statutory deadline.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
C. Smiley | Jun. 16, 2025 | 
| 
 B333481 
 | 
Sexton v. Apple Studios LLC
 Trial court erroneously denied Apple Studio's anti-SLAPP motion against actor whose offer was withdrawn after he refused to comply with the studio's COVID vaccination requirement.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Wiley | Apr. 1, 2025 | 
| 
 A166007  
 | 
Six4Three v. Facebook
 Anti-SLAPP motion was appropriately granted against developer seeking to use defendant Facebook's photo data for an app allowing users to search for photos of people in swimsuits.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
T. Brown | Mar. 14, 2025 | 
| 
 D084820 
 | 
Callister v. James B. Church & Associates
 Failure to advise a client to file a protective claim for a refund was not a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Trust and Estates | 
 | 
J. McConnell | Jan. 23, 2025 | 
| 
 D082750 
 | 
Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix
 Request for monetary relief did not preclude the public interest exception to California's anti-SLAPP statute.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Kelety | Dec. 12, 2024 | 
| 
 A167764 
 | 
Modification: Littlefield v. Littlefield
 Anti-SLAPP statute mandated granting of attorney's fees where motion was frivolous, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that plaintiff's petition sought to impose liability based on any protected activity.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Goldman | Dec. 6, 2024 | 
| 
 A167764 
 | 
Littlefield v. Littlefield
 Anti-SLAPP statute mandated granting of attorney's fees where motion was frivolous, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that plaintiff's petition sought to impose liability based on any protected activity.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Goldman | Nov. 19, 2024 | 
| 
 F086904 
 | 
LVNV Funding v. Rodriguez
 Because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows consumers wrongly sued over a debt to pursue a claim, debt collector's anti-SLAPP motion against mistakenly-identified consumer was improperly granted.  | 
Consumer Law, Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Snauffer | Nov. 14, 2024 | 
| 
 A167118 
 | 
Osborne v. Pleasanton Automotive Co., LP
 Employee letter to human resources complaining of workplace harassment was privileged and therefore could not be the basis of libel and slander claims.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
T. Stewart | Nov. 1, 2024 | 
| 
 E079078 
 | 
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell 
 Public interest exemption to anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because no public interest was advanced by suing individual defendants for relief that only defendant Water District could provide.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Municipal Law | 
 | 
M. Raphael | Oct. 15, 2024 | 
| 
 B325563 
 | 
Dignity Health v. Mounts 
 Granting anti-SLAPP special motion to strike was proper where surgeon failed to demonstrate probability of prevailing because hospital's adverse actions were shielded by the litigation and common interest privileges.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Health Care | 
 | 
K. Yegan | Sep. 19, 2024 | 
| 
 A168333 
 | 
Modification: Taylor v. Tesla, Inc.
 Despite pending parallel litigation, refusal to respond to employee record requests under the Labor Code was not protected conduct subject to the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Employment Law | 
 | 
J. Streeter | Sep. 4, 2024 | 
| 
 A168333 
 | 
Taylor v. Tesla, Inc. 
 Despite pending parallel litigation, refusal to respond to employee record requests under the Labor Code was not protected conduct subject to the provisions of the anti-SLAPP statute.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Employment Law | 
 | 
J. Streeter | Aug. 12, 2024 | 
| 
 B325299 
 | 
WasteXperts, Inc. v. The City of Los Angeles
 Declaratory relief claim did not arise from protected prelitigation activity where the dispute would exist even if defendant had not sent prelitigation correspondence.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
H. Zukin | Jul. 15, 2024 | 
| 
 23-15260 
 | 
Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc.
 Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because database containing professional contact information did not meet requirements to overcome public interest exemption.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
R. Clifton | Jul. 9, 2024 | 
| 
 B323878 
 | 
Luo v. Volokh
 Plaintiff's restraining order petition was properly stricken as a strategic lawsuit against public participation targeting defendant's writings about her history of pseudonymous litigation.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
H. Bendix | Jun. 27, 2024 | 
| 
 G062338 
 | 
Bui v. Ky 
 Plaintiff, wife of a local politician, was not a limited-purpose public figure who needed to show defendants acted with malice in their anti-SLAPP motion.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
T. Delaney | May 10, 2024 | 
| 
 H049873 
 | 
Bassi v. Bassi 
 Domestic violence restraining order was not struck even though some of anti-SLAPP movant's activity was protected because restraining order petition had requisite minimal merit.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Family Law | 
 | 
A. Danner | May 10, 2024 | 
| 
 F084700M 
 | 
Modification: Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto
 Doctor was not precluded from bringing second lawsuit because the issues in the fee order and anti-SLAPP order were not identical.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
C. Poochigian | Apr. 29, 2024 | 
| 
 B316971 
 | 
Norman v. Ross
 Trial court erroneously denied defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion, where plaintiff's claims about allegedly stolen TV idea arose from defendants' protected activity.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
A. Collins | Apr. 24, 2024 | 
| 
 B317061 
 | 
Dubac v. Itkoff 
 Homeowners' statements to their HOA were not made in connection with a public issue of public interest because they were private name-calling made to a handful of people.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Wiley | Apr. 23, 2024 | 
| 
 B324368 
 | 
Lugo v. Pixior, LLC
 Independent police investigation shielded former employer from liability for malicious prosecution claim even though one of its employees had provided false testimony at a preliminary hearing.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Wiley | Apr. 19, 2024 | 
| 
 B327668 
 | 
Gazal v. Echeverry 
 Plaintiff's fraud claims did not arise from protected speech, but rather from the alleged misconduct that occurred after defendant encouraged plaintiff to donate.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
E. Grimes | Apr. 2, 2024 | 
