Kowal Law Group Logo

Anti-SLAPP

Implied Findings Doctrine Only Applies When the Trial Court's Reasons Are Correct — Here, They Were Wrong

Last updated on October 27, 2021 by Tim Kowal
One of the many ways the deck is stacked against appellants on an appeal has to do with the implied findings doctrine. What is the implied findings doctrine? It says that even if the appellant is absolutely correct that the trial court did, in fact, fail to make the findings necessary to support the judgment...Read More >>

Trial Court Has No Discretion to Consider an Untimely (by Three Years!) Anti-SLAPP Motion, Appellate Court Holds

Last updated on August 31, 2021 by Tim Kowal
Three years and one SLAPP appeal into litigation over a commercial real estate dispute, defendants filed a second anti-SLAPP motion in in Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (D4d3 Aug. 20, 2021) 2021 WL 3700752 [no. G058687] (nonpub. opn.). But the statute says anti-SLAPP motions must be filed within 60 days...Read More >>

Trial court abused its discretion in striking evidence offered in anti-SLAPP reply brief

Last updated on December 16, 2020 by Tim Kowal
If new evidence is truly in reply to an argument raised for the first time in an opposition, the trial court abuses its discretion in excluding it. New evidence may not be submitted by an anti-SLAPP movant on reply. (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (Jay).) So the trial court struck three reply declarations...Read More >>

Frivolous SLAPP Motions, and a Split of Authority on Costs Following Voluntary Dismissals

Last updated on December 3, 2020 by Tim Kowal
A recent unpublished decision sets up three good lessons: (1) SLAPPing based on plaintiff's subjective intent to chill protected conduct is meritless and sanctionable; (2) but sanctions are not available on appeal unless sought in a separate motion; and (3) whether a defendant may recover costs against a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses claims may depend on which...Read More >>

No Safe Harbor Required to Sanction Frivolous Anti-SLAPP Motion, Fourth District Holds

Last updated on November 17, 2020 by Tim Kowal
Anti-SLAPP motions are powerful remedy, and litigants sometimes cannot resist filing even frivolous motions. Can a plaintiff faced with a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion get sanctions in light of the difficult procedural hurdles of CCP 128.5, which requires a separate motion served 21 days before filing it? The Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, says yes, finding...Read More >>

The SLAPP That Breaks the Camel's Back

Last updated on October 30, 2020 by Tim Kowal
You will get a sense of the First District's frustration over this SLAPP appeal just by its disposition. The case is Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal LLC v. City of Oakland (D1d2 Sept 17, 2020) A157330. The Court does not merely affirm the order denying, without prejudice, the City of Oakland's SLAPP motion. No, the Court reverses...Read More >>

Appeals and Anti-SLAPP Law: California Appellate Law Podcast Episode 1 (Jul. 1, 2020)

Last updated on July 2, 2020 by Tim Kowal
TVA's Tim Kowal is a co-host of the California Appellate Law Podcast. To listen or subscribe, click here. The inaugural episode of California Appellate Law Podcast discusses California's anti-SLAPP law, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and several key decisions by the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. In 1992, California enacted...Read More >>
menuchevron-down linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram