and which is the WRONG question. It goes something like this: "Adrianos, someone wrote defamatory comments about me on the internet and I want to do something about it. Can I file a lawsuit?" This is the WRONG question. Anyone can file a lawsuit at anytime, whether it's defamation, libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of … [Read more...] about The Question Nearly Every Client Asks Me . . .
Archives for 2010
Exception To The Discovery Stay Under the anti-SLAPP Statute
As I've mentioned in previous posts numerous times before, upon the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion, "all discovery proceedings" are stayed. However, there is an exception where the Plaintiff can show good cause: (g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall … [Read more...] about Exception To The Discovery Stay Under the anti-SLAPP Statute
What Is The Standard of Review On An anti-SLAPP Appeal?
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) … [Read more...] about What Is The Standard of Review On An anti-SLAPP Appeal?
How Some Celebrity Lawyers Do It And Why Your Lawyer Shouldn’t . . .
I understand very well that lawyers have an obligation to zealously advocate on behalf of their clients. However, there are certain tactics which attorneys should never employ. One such tactic is to insert irrelevant matter in a pleading in order to gain a PR advantage over a defendant (e.g., personal details about somebody's life, irrelevant and prejudicial … [Read more...] about How Some Celebrity Lawyers Do It And Why Your Lawyer Shouldn’t . . .
Mandatory Attorneys’ Fees To Prevailing anti-SLAPP Defendants
California's anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16(c)) provides that a "prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. The fee award is not discretionary--it is mandatory--and the fees can be very significant. The purpose behind this rule is to discourage strategic lawsuits against public participation … [Read more...] about Mandatory Attorneys’ Fees To Prevailing anti-SLAPP Defendants