California’s anti-SLAPP statute is a powerful tool. It allows the trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims very early, if the claims arise from an act in furtherance of the rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue, unless the plaintiff can show a probability of success. There’s been an explosion of anti-SLAPP rulings in recent years, and many of those rulings make their way to the appellate courts. GMSR has successfully handled anti-SLAPP appeals addressing an array of issues.
Appealing Anti-Slapp Rulings in the Ninth Circuit
In the California state courts, every order granting or denying an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable. But anti-SLAPP appealability is more of a minefield in the Ninth Circuit. There, an anti-SLAPP ruling is appealable only if it satisfies the requirements of the “collateral order doctrine”
Court of Appeal affirms application of anti-SLAPP statute to summary suspension of medical staff privileges
Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5942 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Two years after Cedars-Sinai summarily suspended a physician’s medical staff privileges, he sued Cedars-Sinai for denial of his right to practice medicine. The trial
Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Aug, 22, 2014, B247957) 2014 WL 4162789 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms application of anti-SLAPP statute to summary suspension of medical staff privileges
Nama Holdings v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (Aug. 7, 2013, B238449) 2013 WL 4034358 [nonpublished opinion]
A real estate LLC retained GMSR’s law firm client to represent its managers in a suit brought by one of the LLC’s investors. Arbitrators ultimately held that the managers had not acted in good faith which, among other things, arguably negated the LLC’s obligation to
GMSR defends law firm client’s anti-SLAPP dismissal of fraudulent conveyance claim for accepting payment for its services
NAMA v. Dorsey & Whitney (2013) 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5592 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [unpublished]. A real estate LLC retained GMSR’s law firm client to represent its managers in a suit brought by one of the LLC’s investors. Arbitrators
9th Circuit Judges Call for an End to Anti-SLAPP in Federal Court, Los Angeles Daily Journal (May 9, 2013)
In a Daily Journal article, Alana Rotter discusses anti-SLAPP practice in the Ninth Circuit and why it may come to an end.
Aguilar v. Goldstein (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1152
Breach of fiduciary duty claim not barred by anti-SLAPP statute, because it did not “arise from” earlier lawsuit filed by defendants
Williams v. County of Los Angeles (Apr. 16, 2012, B229683) 2012 WL 1260163 [nonpublished opinion]
“Plaintiff was a lay advocate, representing public employees before the Civil Service Commission. After the Commission banned him from appearing before it and its hearing officers for disruptive behavior, plaintiff sued multiple parties, including the Commission, the County of Los Angeles, and a former fire
Court of Appeal affirms anti-SLAPP judgment in favor of GMSR’s clients
Williams v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2797 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five) [unpublished]. Plaintiff was a lay advocate, representing public employees before the Civil Service Commission. After the Commission banned him from appearing before
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (Mar. 30, 2011, B223345) 2011 WL 1138420 [nonpublished opinion]
In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion filed by GMSR’s client, the County of Los Angeles, and remanded the case for an award of fees to the County. After the briefing on the fee motion was ostensibly
Browse By Practice Area
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.