In Episode 35 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we take a deep dive into what constitutes a matter of public interest under the anti-SLAPP statute. It is apparent from the motions we are defeating that counsel is sorely lacking an understanding of this important point. As was held in the Supreme Court case of […]

The post SLAPP035 – Understanding the Public Interest Requirement appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

In Episode 34 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we examine the amendment to Civil Code section 47, which changed calls to the police from being absolutely privileged, to only conditionally privileged. Attorneys who sue for calls to the police, do so at their peril, as opposing counsel learned. And we are happy to report […]

The post SLAPP034 – Are Calls to the Police Still Protected Speech? appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

In Episode 33 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we revisit the California Supreme Court decision of Sweetwater Union High School District v. Gilbane Building Co. Our client was sued by an attorney, and we had the action dismissed by way of an anti-SLAPP motion. The attorney appealed, and in his briefs, he never mentioned […]

The post SLAPP033 – How to Defeat an anti-SLAPP Motion with Inadmissible Evidence appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

We begin Episode 32 with the discussion of how Morris & Stone just defeated an anti-SLAPP motion. I reveal the common (and fatal) mistake made by defense counsel when they pursue anti-SLAPP motions. And on the topic of mistakes, based on my prior article, we turn to the three cases that counsel almost always cite […]

The post SLAPP032 – The 3 Most-Often Miscited Anti-SLAPP Cases appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

In Episode 31, in addition to an anti-SLAPP case, we examine another example of how opposing counsel blew an opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment, by being unaware of the procedure rules. The limit for the memorandum of points on a typical motion is 15 pages, but a motion for summary judgment is a […]

The post SLAPP031 – A Gambler Bets Wrong on the Anti-SLAPP Statute appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

Fun, fun, fun in the California sun at Morris & Stone. In just the past couple of weeks, we (1) Obtained a 3.9 million dollar defamation verdict for one client; (2) Got another client out of a 7 million dollar case on a motion for summary judgment, and (3) Were awarded our fees following a […]

The post SLAPP030 – Is it Defamatory to Call Someone a “Crook?” appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

In episode 28, we discussed the attorney who sued his own client for malicious prosecution. The client had challenged the fees charged by the attorney by way of the informal fee arbitration process, and when he lost the attorney turned around and sued for malicious prosecution. Incredibly, the court denied our motion, so we had […]

The post SLAPP029 – Can Attorneys Sue Their Clients for Malicious Prosecution After a Fee Dispute? appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

Some of our anti-SLAPP cases are breaking new legal ground through some very interesting fact patterns. Penal Code section 11172 You are probably aware that certain professionals are required to report any child abuse situation of which they become aware. Penal Code section 11172 was created in order to afford those mandated reporters immunity against […]

The post SLAPP028 – An Exception to the Absolute Police Report Privilege? appeared first on California SLAPP Law.