New CA Anti-SLAPP Case

 

 

 

 

I can help. I've been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates since 1995, and I've been listed in The Best Lawyers in America every year since 2012. I've represented both plaintiffs and defendants in business, insurance bad faith and coverage, personal injury, real property and wrongful death cases, I've recovered over $50 million for plaintiff clients, and obtained numerous defense verdicts and good settlements for defense clients. I've tried over 100 jury, court and administrative trials and arbitrations. For many years, I've provided mentoring to many less experienced lawyers in California.

 

Working with me, newer lawyers quickly develop the skills, strategies, and systems necessary to win their cases and build their dream law practice. How will it feel to be a successful and highly respected lawyer in your practice areas? Today is the day to start creating your future. 

 

Click the link to learn more about Master Lawyer Mentoring™, or email me at [email protected] or call me at (619) 990-4312.

 

 

To get my free summaries of the 22 new civil cases published by the California Supreme Court in 2022, click here.

Below is a discussion of a new CA civil case published last month.

Can Attorney Fees Be Awarded for Filing a Frivolous Anti-SLAPP Motion?

Anti-SLAPP motions give defendants an opportunity to quickly knock out the plaintiff's case and also get an award of attorney fees. But is there any punishment if a defendant files a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion? Last month, the Third District Court of Appeal published a new decision addressing this issue. To find out what they decided, watch the video and read my case summary below.

New CA Anti-SLAPP/Code of Civil Procedure Decision  

City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures etc. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 17827565: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure, section 425. 16) and it’s order awarding plaintiff attorney fees of $72,798.65 and costs of $1,053.31 because the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The anti-SLAPP motion was filed against 4 of 12 causes of action in plaintiff’s complaint regarding a joint undertaking involving the construction and operation of a theme park called Quarry Park Adventures. The parties did not actively dispute that the speech at issue in those causes of action was commercial speech, to which section 425.16 does not apply. Instead, the parties debated whether the speech concerning the theme park qualified under the “artistic work” exception (section 425.17(d)(2)) to the commercial speech exemption (section 425.17(c)). The trial court was not bound by an expert opinion offered by defendants and it properly carried out its duty to interpret the statute and made its determination as a matter of law as to whether a theme park would qualify as an artistic work under section 425.17(d)(2). The trial court correctly sustained plaintiff’s objection to paragraphs in the expert declaration as relayed case-specific hearsay. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676.) Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to plaintiff pursuant to section 128.5 as incorporated in section 425.16(c), because any reasonable attorney would agree that defendants’ special motion to strike on the ground that the proposed theme park was an artistic work was totally devoid of merit. (C.A. 3rd, December 21, 2022.)