| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 
 G059523 
 | 
Edward v. Ellis 
 Under the anti-SLAPP statute, in a libel action involving a limited public figure, plaintiffs need only establish a probability they can prove actual malice and that may be proven through circumstantial evidence.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
T. Goethals | Dec. 16, 2021 | 
| 
 B305066 
 | 
Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC
 The allegedly misappropriated creative aspects of a writer's television pilot did not warrant anti-SLAPP protection.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
D. Perluss | Dec. 16, 2021 | 
| 
 D077984 
 | 
Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
 Statements made to investors were not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because they fell under the statute's commercial speech exemption.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
R. Huffman | Nov. 19, 2021 | 
| 
 D078112 
 | 
Weeden v. Hoffman
 In the context of protected activity, the litigation privilege defense can be raised against tort claims, but not breach of contract claims.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
C. Aaron | Oct. 15, 2021 | 
| 
 B308889 
 | 
Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies
 Donkey Kong record holder provided sufficient evidence for his defamation claim to survive an anti-SLAPP motion.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
S. Ohta | Oct. 14, 2021 | 
| 
 B305834 
 | 
Dae v. Traver 
 There was 'minimal merit' to avoid being struck as SLAPP when a petition challenged provisions in a family trust containing a no contest clause.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
E. Lui | Sep. 29, 2021 | 
| 
 B305797 
 | 
Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
 Defendant's statements were not made in connection with an issue of 'candy confusion' but were aimed to whip up a crowd for vengeful retribution against a bakery.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Wiley | Sep. 7, 2021 | 
| 
 D076923 
 | 
Modification: Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
 Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
R. Huffman | Aug. 31, 2021 | 
| 
 B303978 
 | 
Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates
 Second anti-SLAPP motion relying on the law of the case was appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge paragraphs in amended complaint that were previously struck by appellate court.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
H. Bendix | Aug. 25, 2021 | 
| 
 G058836 
 | 
Morris Cerullo World Evangelism v. Newport Harbor Offices etc.
 Anti-SLAPP motion may not be directed to affirmative defense.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
R. Fybel | Aug. 20, 2021 | 
| 
 A158391 
 | 
Gallano v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC
 Plaintiff established probability of prevailing on her Labor Code Section 2802 claim sufficient to survive defendant's anti-SLAPP motion.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
G. Sanchez | Aug. 18, 2021 | 
| 
 20-55579 
 | 
Herring Networks v. Maddow
 Exaggerated statement, cushioned within undisputed news story could not reasonably be understood to imply assertion of objective fact in order to amount to defamation.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Smith | Aug. 18, 2021 | 
| 
 D076923 
 | 
Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
 Contempt proceedings cannot form basis of malicious prosecution cause of action because contempt is a subsidiary procedural action; thus, anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
R. Huffman | Aug. 3, 2021 | 
| 
 G060034 
 | 
Exline v. Gillmor 
 Public official's Form 700 filings falls within Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.17(d)(2)'s exception to public interest exemption to anti-SLAPP statute.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
R. Fybel | Aug. 2, 2021 | 
| 
 S244148 
 | 
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System 
 Disciplinary actions imposed through peer review do not qualify as protected activity under anti-SLAPP statute.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
L. Kruger | Jul. 30, 2021 | 
| 
 G059446 
 | 
Modification: People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin
 Medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims were defendant's usual course of business and may not have resulted in litigation; thus, trial court properly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
E. Moore | Jul. 23, 2021 | 
| 
 G059446 
 | 
People ex rel. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Rubin
 Medical reports and bills in support of insurance claims were defendant's usual course of business and may not have resulted in litigation; thus, trial court properly denied defendant's anti-SLAPP motion.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
E. Moore | Jul. 14, 2021 | 
| 
 B304642 
 | 
Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions
 Under anti-SLAPP statute, illegal conduct must be based on defendant's concession or uncontroverted and conclusive evidence.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Stratton | Jul. 1, 2021 | 
| 
 B307235 
 | 
Modification: Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
 Trial court's order granting plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant's cross-claim for fraud was vacated because defendant showed probability of prevailing on that claim.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Tangeman | Jun. 25, 2021 | 
| 
 B307235 
 | 
Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
 Trial court's order granting plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant's cross-claim for fraud was vacated because defendant showed probability of prevailing on that claim.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Tangeman | Jun. 7, 2021 | 
| 
 D076570 
 | 
Dunning v. Johnson 
 Defendants' attorneys did not bring CEQA litigation with malice; thus, their anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. McConnell | May 17, 2021 | 
| 
 B306283 
 | 
Towner v. County of Ventura
 Trial court erred in granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motion because County filed confidential personnel records without first complying with mandatory procedures for disclosure, which is illegal under Government Code Section 1222.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
G. Feuer | May 3, 2021 | 
| 
 B302558 
 | 
Ratcliff v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
 Defendant's anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because plaintiffs used defendant's pending civil action and investigation to show defendant's ratification of tortious conduct.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
L. Rubin | May 3, 2021 | 
| 
 B302365 
 | 
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company
 Trial court properly denied appellant's anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiff established probability of prevailing on its fraud claim.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Stratton | Apr. 22, 2021 | 
| 
 B299469 
 | 
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez 
 Dismissal due to technical or procedural ground, such as pursuant to settlement agreement, is not considered favorable termination for purposes of malicious prosecution.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
L. Rubin | Apr. 21, 2021 | 
| 
 E075582 
 | 
Muddy Waters v. Superior Court 
 Trial court erred in denying defendant's special motion to strike based upon commercial speech exception.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
R. Fields | Apr. 8, 2021 | 
| 
 A159246 
 | 
Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista 
 City's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted because plaintiff could not prevail on his complaint that City wrongfully disclosed his personnel records pertaining to sustained findings of making false reports.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
I. Petrou | Mar. 18, 2021 | 
| 
 D075648 
 | 
Area 55 v. Nicholas & Tomasevic
 For purposes of anti-SLAPP statute, trial court erred in ruling that Appellants did not demonstrate probability of prevailing on merits of their malicious prosecution claim.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
J. Irion | Feb. 24, 2021 | 
| 
 B302608 
 | 
Hoang v. Tran 
 Respondent was collaterally estopped from claiming published article did not concern matter of public interest because identical issue was previously decided against him in prior proceeding.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
K. Yegan | Feb. 3, 2021 | 
| 
 B297176 
 | 
Trinity Risk Management v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions 
 Filing amended complaint does not render cross-complaint null; thus, anti-SLAPP motion to strike cross-complainants' defamation claim was not rendered moot.  | 
Anti-SLAPP | 
 | 
M. Stratton | Jan. 19, 2021 | 
