COURT REVERSES ANTI-SLAPP ORDER, BUT AFFIRMS RETALIATION CLAIM.
COURT REVERSES ANTI-SLAPP ORDER, BUT AFFIRMS RETALIATION CLAIM.
  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Firm News
  4.  » COURT REVERSES ANTI-SLAPP ORDER, BUT AFFIRMS RETALIATION CLAIM.

COURT REVERSES ANTI-SLAPP ORDER, BUT AFFIRMS RETALIATION CLAIM.

| Mar 1, 2019 | Firm News

Laker sued the Board of Trustees of the California State University and Mary for defamation and retaliation arising from a series of internal investigations conducted by the University. The defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, 3 which the trial court denied on the ground that the defendants failed to show that Laker’s defamation and retaliation claims arose from any activity protected by section 425.16. For the reasons explained below, the Appeal Court agree with the University and McVey that the trial court erred in that finding as to Laker’s defamation claim. However, the Appeal Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the University’s motion to strike Laker’s retaliation claim, although they struck one allegation contained in that claim.

See Laker v. Board of Trustee’s of the California State University.

If you are faced with internet harassment and defamation, you need a highly skilled attorney to help you resolve the issue. Contact the Law Office of Robert Rodriguez.

Robert Rodriguez has prosecuted and defended California’s Anti-SLAPP law Section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, et seq. in the State of California courts.  Robert Rodriguez has litigated well over 100 family law cases and civil litigation matters including personal injury motor vehicle cases, dog bite and slip & fall cases, breach of contract, defamation & invasion of privacy, fraud, unfair business practice, malicious prosecution, workplace and employment matters including sexual harassment, wrongful termination, wage & hour violations, discrimination pursuant to the FEHA, Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq., violations of the FMLA & Pregnancy Leave, Civil Rights  discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the State of California and California federal district courts.

* Disclaimer – Robert Rodriguez is licensed to practice only in the State of California & this analysis is applied only under State of California law.  Robert Rodriguez is also admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts, Central, Northern & Eastern Districts of California.

LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT