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
Anti-SLAPP
The California Supreme Court’s anti-SLAPP Decisions
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. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Pierce Gore (2010) WL 1948283 Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1 In re Episcopal Church … [Read more...] about The California Supreme Court’s anti-SLAPP Decisions
A Little Known Requirement in the California anti-SLAPP Statute
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 … [Read more...] about A Little Known Requirement in the California anti-SLAPP Statute
Don’t Let The Court Give Your Adversary Special Treatment
Every once and a while I come across a pro se litigant on the other side of the case (note: pro se litigant means someone who is representing him or herself), and this can be a good thing, but it can also be a major irritant On the positive end, as a lawyer, you have a tremendous advantage against your adversary and you can really do a number on him or her if they don't follow … [Read more...] about Don’t Let The Court Give Your Adversary Special Treatment
Plaintiff Need Not Substantiate All Theories Presented Within A Single Cause of Action
In my last post I discussed the 'minimal merit' standard with respect to a plaintiff's burden in opposing an anti-SLAPP motion. Recently, I saw a brief (which prompted this post) where the defendant in its moving papers argued that the plaintiff was required to prove the claim to the court. This is wrong. “A plaintiff is not required ‘to prove the … [Read more...] about Plaintiff Need Not Substantiate All Theories Presented Within A Single Cause of Action