• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / angeles / A Little Known Requirement in the California anti-SLAPP Statute

A Little Known Requirement in the California anti-SLAPP Statute

May 17, 2010 by Adrianos Facchetti 1 Comment

I was not surprised last week when a Judge said that anti-SLAPP is a complicated area of law—it most certainly is. There are well over 350 published decisions on the subject, including several California Supreme court decisions. I often tell other lawyers that they need to be very careful in crafting their papers in support of or in opposition to an anti-SLAPP motion. One such piece of advice I often give is to be sure to comply with section 425.16(j)(1).

Section 425.16(j)(1) states:

“(j)(1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees.”

This means that a party filing or opposing an anti-SLAPP motion must promptly transmit an endorsed copy of the caption page to the Judicial Council.

But what happens if the moving party fails to do so? Can the court deny the motion based on failure to comply with this provision alone?

Well, I came across an unpublished California decision in which the court decided that very question in the negative.

Here’s why:

  • The statute does not specify a penalty for non-compliance
  • There is no case law interpreting the statute to provide for a penalty for non-compliance
  • It was reasonable to conclude that if the legislature wanted to create such a penalty, it would have expressly done so
  • There was no prejudice to the other party

I think the court reached the right decision. The purpose of subdivision (j) is to monitor the number of anti-SLAPP motions and decisions to determine its effect—not to punish a non-complying party. However, you don’t want to be in the position of making the bulleted arguments mentioned above. So, make sure you promptly transmit an endorsed copy of the caption page to the Judicial Council. You can do so by e-mail at: SLAPP@jud.ca.gov.

If you liked this post, please click here to receive a copy of my report, the "Ultimate Beginner’s Guide to Defamation Law."

 

Buffer Share

Filed Under: angeles, Anti-SLAPP, appeal, attorney, county, lawyer, los, orange, SLAPP Tagged With: appeal, attorney, lawyer, los angeles, orange county, SLAPP

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. John says

    April 27, 2017 at 4:46 am

    Nice post. Appreciate you making things so clear. Looking forward to your next blog.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to John Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in