Anti-SLAPP Law

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.

Roosen v. Farrell (Aug. 27, 2010, B209873) 2010 WL 3371510 [nonpublished opinion]

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a malicious prosecution action against GMSR’s attorney client under the anti-SLAPP statute. The malicious prosecution action was based on cross-claims that the attorney had filed against the plaintiff in a complex network of probate proceedings.

Court of Appeal affirms order granting lawyer’s anti-SLAPP motion in malicious prosecution action

Roosen v. Farrell (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7115 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a malicious prosecution action against GMSR’s attorney client under the anti-SLAPP statute. The malicious prosecution action

Price v. Stossel (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 992

Ninth Circuit holds that district court erred in dismissing GMSR’s client’s express defamation claim against ABC on anti-SLAPP grounds.

Jul 01, 2009 Related Cases
Ruttlen v. County of Los Angeles (July 1, 2009, B208715) 2009 WL 1875266 [nonpublished opinion]

Anti-SLAPP law covers public officials’ statements to press and Board of Supervisors; protected by official-duty, official proceeding and common-interest privileges

In re Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467

Property rights of local church leaving larger denomination

May 31, 2007 Related Cases
Gallanis-Politis v. Medina (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 600

Scope of contractual limitations on lost profit damages (settled before decision)

Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (Mar. 22, 2004, B164381) 2004 WL 551377 [nonpublished opinion]

Photo from criminal investigation admitted during civil proceeding covered by anti-SLAPP statute; litigation privilege

Dec 18, 2003 Related Cases
La Colectiva, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (Dec. 18, 2003, B163430) 2003 WL 22969310 [nonpublished opinion]

Probability of success – litigation privilege regarding press leak of internal investigation

Sipple v. Foundation for Nat. Progress (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 226

Defamation action dismissed because plaintiff a “public figure”

Who We Serve

PUBLIC ENTITIES

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.

Read More
INSURERS

Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.

Read More
BUSINESSES

GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.

Read More
TRIAL COUNSEL

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.

Read More
INDIVIDUALS

GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.

Read More
COMMUNITY PRO BONO

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.

Read More