What Is The Standard of Review On An anti-SLAPP Appeal?

Posted on July 26, 2010 by Adrianos Facchetti

I outlined in a previous post how risky it is for a losing plaintiff on an anti-SLAPP motion to appeal a trial court's ruling. The primary reason being that a prevailing defendant may be awarded his attorney's fees for opposing the SLAPP at the trial and appellate levels.

But in this post I want to lay off the doom and gloom (after all, it's another sunny day in Los Angeles) and discuss what the standard of review is if you (whether Plaintiff or Defendant) choose to appeal a trial court's ruling.

A "standard of review" is lawyer-speak for how much deference an appellate court will give to a lower court in reviewing its decision. In the anti-SLAPP context, the standard of review is de novo (which means "anew") because such orders present pure questions of law. This means the appellate court gives no deference to the lower court's ruling and decides the matter with fresh eyes.

This apparently relaxed standard may encourage a losing party to appeal, however, in reality, most appellate decisions end up affirming the trial court's ruling for a number of reasons which I won't go into here. That coupled with the specter of getting hit with attorney's fees should cause an appealing party to stop and think before file an appeal.

 

If you liked this post, please leave a favorable comment down below. 

Tags: , , , , ,

What Your Defamation Attorney Doesn't Know And How It Can Hurt You

Posted on May 31, 2009 by Adrianos Facchetti

Are you ready to hear this?

I'm about to reveal a little known secret that can dramatically change the length of your defamation lawsuit.  And I mean BIG time. Knowing this one thing may allow you to obtain preferential treatment from the Court.

Sounds good, right? I mean, who doesn't want special treatment?

I almost hesitate to tell you this for two reasons: (1) it's so simple that you won't think it's a big deal once I tell you; and (2) I don't want my competition to know this because I don't want it done to me. But as I've said before, I won't let my fear of competition get in the way of educating YOU about defamation law.

So here it is . . .

The way to get preferential treatment from the Court is to: ASK FOR IT at the right time, and in the right way.

You see, most attorneys know that some kinds of cases are entitled to priority in trial setting. This means that some cases must be given an earlier trial date than others. Attorneys also know that other types of cases CAN be given priority.  In other words, the Court has discretion to give a case an earlier trial date other cases.

What is amazing is that most attorneys (at least the ones I know) aren't aware that you can speed up a defamation case dramatically by making an ex parte application shortly after filing a complaint pursuant to CCP § 460.5

So here's how it's done:

  • File a Complaint
  • Make an Ex Parte Application Shortening Time to Respond to the Complaint
  • Include a declaration showing that the alleged statement has been continuously published and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the publication will continue
  • Serve a copy of the application, declaration, and order along with the summons

If you do the above and the court grants your request, the court MUST give your case priority in setting a date for trial.

This will speed up your trial. Instead of years, your trial may be heard in a matter of months. And that's what you want if you've been defamed.  You want justice. And you want it now.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to receive free updates by e-mail or RSS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,