WHEN DOESN’T THE ANTI-SLAPP APPLY?
WHEN DOESN’T THE ANTI-SLAPP APPLY?
  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Firm News
  4.  » WHEN DOESN’T THE ANTI-SLAPP APPLY?

WHEN DOESN’T THE ANTI-SLAPP APPLY?

| Apr 4, 2019 | Firm News

Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied  by Trial Court. Court Finds No Issue of Public Concern. Denial of Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees Reversed! Defendants Also Sanctioned for Frivolous Appeal in the Amount of $8,500.00!

In providing an example of when Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, would not be applicable, one case offered this hypothetical: “Blackacre sells a house to Whiteacre, and Whiteacre sues, claiming defendant misrepresented the square footage. Blackacre brings a special motion to strike, claiming his speech involves a matter of public interest, because millions of Americans live in houses and buy and sell houses. . . . [A]pplying the anti-SLAPP statute in such a case would be absurd.” (Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica International, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 595, 601 (Consumer Justice).)

SLAPP” is an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 57.)

To fall under section 425.16(e)(4), “the conduct must be in connection with an issue of public interest.” (Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1132 (Weinberg).)

See Workman v Colichman, (2019) 2nd DCA, B288322 .

If you are faced with such a similar legal situation involving Callifornia’s Anti-SLAPP law, contact the Law Office of Robert Rodriguez immediately!

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