California SLAPP Law

California SLAPP Law [https://californiaslapplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/California-SLAPP-Law-Cover-1400-1-300x300.jpg] 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 [https://californiaslapplaw.com/2021/06/the-top-three-anti-slapp-cases-every-defense-attorney-cites-whether-they-apply-or-not/], we turn to the three cases that counsel almost always cite improperly when defending against an anti-SLAPP motion. Listen and find out what these three cases really stand for: Nguyen-Lam v. Cao (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 858. Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122. Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299. Finally, in the after-show, I reveal a successful strategy to obtain a trial continuance, even when the judge has already said no. The post SLAPP032 – The 3 Most-Often Miscited Anti-SLAPP Cases [https://californiaslapplaw.com/2021/06/slapp032-the-3-most-often-miscited-anti-slapp-cases/] appeared first on California SLAPP Law [https://californiaslapplaw.com].

California SLAPP Law [https://californiaslapplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/California-SLAPP-Law-Cover-1400-1.jpg] 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 big deal, so the rules graciously allow 20 pages for that type of motion. The same rule applies to the opposition. But this attorney offered up a 60 page memo. How did we use that error to seal his doom? Listen to Episode 31 to find out. Next we turn to the case of Mike Postle, a professional gambler. Some accused Postle of cheating at a particular poker tournament. He took umbrage with that, and sued 12 of his accusers. We would have told poor Mr. Postle the tale of Joe the Alcoholic, which made clear that he could not prevail on his defamation claim. Listen for all the details, and the only possible silver lining in Postle’s debacle. The post SLAPP031 – A Gambler Bets Wrong on the Anti-SLAPP Statute [https://californiaslapplaw.com/2021/05/slapp031-a-gambler-bets-wrong-on-the-anti-slapp-statute/] appeared first on California SLAPP Law [https://californiaslapplaw.com].

California SLAPP Law [https://californiaslapplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/California-SLAPP-Law-Cover-300x300-1.jpg] 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 successful anti-SLAPP motion, even though the motion did not dispose of every cause of action. In Episode 30 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we discuss the facts of the aforementioned anti-SLAPP motion, and the motion for attorney fees that followed. This particular anti-SLAPP motion presented some really interesting issues, as did the motion for attorney fees. As to the anti-SLAPP motion, we examine whether it can ever be defamatory to call someone a crook. It might seem so, but how exactly does one define a crook in order to offer evidence that one is not a crook? As to the motion for attorney fees, how does the court handle such a request when the underlying anti-SLAPP motion was only partially successful? Along the way, we are again reminded why it is so crucial to know the procedural rules governing any motion you bring. The post SLAPP030 – Is it Defamatory to Call Someone a “Crook?” [https://californiaslapplaw.com/2021/05/defamatory-to-call-someone-a-crook/] appeared first on California SLAPP Law [https://californiaslapplaw.com].

President Trump is never short on controversy, and said controversy leads to some interesting cases. In Episode 27 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we will discuss two Trump cases — one First Amendment and one anti-SLAPP — arising from the words and tweets of our sneerless leader. We’ll also discuss when a motion to dismiss can be a better option than an anti-SLAPP motion. The first case is Nwanguma v. Donald Trump, arising from his comments at a political rally before he was elected. When hecklers tried to shout him down, he said “get ’em out of here.” The crowd heeded his words and bodily removed the protesters, who then sued for battery and incitement. They claimed that by saying “get ’em out of here,” Trump incited the crowd to riot. Trump moved to dismiss, arguing that his words were mere hyperbole. How did the court rule? Listen to Episode 27 and find out! Next comes the infamous case of Stormy Daniels v. Donald Trump. Daniels sued Trump in two different forums for two different claims. In one, she is simply trying to get out the contract whereby she was paid for her silence. In the other, she had stated during a press conference that she had been threatened by a man who told her to be quiet about sleeping with Trump, even showing an artist’s rendering of the allege suspect from many years prior. Trump felt compelled to tweet that the story was a total “con job.” Her attorney, Michael Avenati, who would have known better if he listened to the California SLAPP Law Podcast, decided to sue for defamation for Trump’s usage of the phrase “con job.” As any regular listener would know, “con job” is just too imprecise to support a defamation claim. It is not verifiably false, and without a verifiably false statement, there can be no defamation. Trump brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted. Not a good week for Avenati. In the same week that the court granted Trump’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding that Daniels would therefore be liable for all of Trump’s attorney fees, Avenati was found personally liable for a multi million dollar judgment by a former associate at his firm, and was given an eviction notice from his law offices for failure to pay rent. And stay around for the after show, where I discuss the happenings with Bell v. Feibush, some precedent I created six years ago.

[https://californiaslapplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/California-SLAPP-Law-Cover-300x300-1.jpg] President Trump is never short on controversy, and said controversy leads to some interesting cases. In Episode 27 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we will discuss two Trump cases — one First Amendment and one anti-SLAPP — arising from the words and tweets of our sneerless leader. We’ll also discuss when a motion to dismiss can be a better option than an anti-SLAPP motion. The first case is Nwanguma v. Donald Trump, arising from his comments at a political rally before he was elected. When hecklers tried to shout him down, he said “get ’em out of here.” The crowd heeded his words and bodily removed the protesters, who then sued for battery and incitement. They claimed that by saying “get ’em out of here,” Trump incited the crowd to riot. Trump moved to dismiss, arguing that his words were mere hyperbole. How did the court rule? Listen to Episode 27 and find out! Next comes the infamous case of Stormy Daniels v. Donald Trump. Daniels sued Trump in two different forums for two different claims. In one, she is simply trying to get out the contract whereby she was paid for her silence. In the other, she had stated during a press conference that she had been threatened by a man who told her to be quiet about sleeping with Trump, even showing an artist’s rendering of the allege suspect from many years prior. Trump felt compelled to tweet that the story was a total “con job.” Her attorney, Michael Avenati, who would have known better if he listened to the California SLAPP Law Podcast, decided to sue for defamation for Trump’s usage of the phrase “con job.” As any regular listener would know, “con job” is just too imprecise to support a defamation claim. It is not verifiably false, and without a verifiably false statement, there can be no defamation. Trump brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted. Not a good week for Avenati. In the same week that the court granted Trump’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding that Daniels would therefore be liable for all of Trump’s attorney fees, Avenati was found personally liable for a multi million dollar judgment by a former associate at his firm, and was given an eviction notice from his law offices for failure to pay rent. And stay around for the after show, where I discuss the happenings with Bell v. Feibush, some precedent I created six years ago. The post SLAPP027 – When a Motion to Dismiss is a Better Strategy than an Anti-SLAPP Motion [https://californiaslapplaw.com/2018/11/motion-to-dismiss-better-than-anti-slapp-motion/] appeared first on California SLAPP Law [https://californiaslapplaw.com].