The California Supreme Court's anti-SLAPP Decisions

Posted on May 22, 2010 by Adrianos Facchetti

Here is a list of the California Supreme Court's 24 decisions to date regarding the SLAPP statute. This is a great starting point to learn about this very complicated and interesting area of law. Here they are in reverse chronological order.

  1. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Pierce Gore (2010) WL 1948283
  2. Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1
  3. In re Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467
  4. Club Members For An Honest Election v. Sierra Club (2008) 45 Cal.4th 309
  5. Freeman v. Schack (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 719
  6. Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683
  7. Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton (2006) 1532
  8. Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33
  9. S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti (2006) 39 Cal.4th 374
  10. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260
  11. Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299
  12. Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192
  13. Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048
  14. Premier Medical Management Sytems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550
  15. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180
  16. Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 679
  17. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553
  18. Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958
  19. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728
  20. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53
  21. Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82
  22. Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811
  23. Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122
  24. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is A Statement Of Decision Required On An Order For An Anti-SLAPP Motion?

Posted on December 19, 2009 by Adrianos Facchetti

You might expect that a statement of decision is required on an order for an anti-SLAPP motion. Such a motion involves important interests (Constitutional interests) and is much more involved than your average motion (demurrer, motion to strike). It requires the parties to submit evidence which would be admissible at trial, has the potential to end a case, and such an order is immediately appealable.

Given the above, wouldn't it seem fair to require a court to issue a statement of decision and explain its reasoning?

Unfortunately, the answer is that a court is NOT required to issue such a statement pursuant to Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 620.

Lien is a short but well-written decision.

The general rule is that statements of decision are limited to trials. CCP § 632. There are some exceptions, however, such as proceedings involving custody of a minor and " . . . a motion to amend judgment to add a judgment debtor on an alter ego theory."

In determining whether an exception to the rule may lie:

" . . courts balance (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the proceeding, including the significance of the rights affected and the magnitude of the potential adverse effect on those rights; and (2) whether appellate review can be effectively accomplished even in the absence of express findings."

(Citations omitted).

The decision acknowledged that anti-SLAPP motions involved important issues, however, it also found that a court does not "try" issues of fact because a court does not weight the evidence in an anti-SLAPP motion.

Further, the court determined that "the absence of factual findings has not precluded effective [appellate] review."

Therefore, an exception to section 632 is not warranted for anti-SLAPP motions and a statement of decision is not required.

Is this result fair? Do you believe courts should be required to explain their reasoning in decisions involving an anti-SLAPP motion? Discuss.

 

Tags: ,