Anti-SLAPP motion
Anti-SLAPP Attorney Fees and the “Spectrum of Success”
Today’s instructive tale involves an anti-SLAPP motion I brought on behalf of a client, and the motion for attorney fees that followed. It provides a good illustration of what I have named the “Spectrum of Success.”
First, an analogy.
Picture that you are involved in an auto accident. Thankfully no one was hurt, but both cars are totaled – your $23,000 Toyota Corolla and the other guy’s $2,400,000 Aston Martin Vulcan.
At the scene of the accident, you both exchanged insurance information. You were both very civil about the whole thing, and shook hands before departing. However, while shaking his hand, you placed your other hand on the other driver’s shoulder, not realizing it was covered with grease. You ruined his $2,000 suit.
Who was at fault is in dispute, and the other guy sues you for negligence, seeking: (1) $2.4 million to replace his car; and (2) $2,000 to replace his suit. Since your insurance only covers up to $30,000 for property damage, your wallet is going to take a serious hit if you are found liable.
You decide to pay extra for a top attorney in this field, and that decision pays off. The attorney immediately recognizes that an Aston Martin Vulcan is a track-only car, and is not street legal. Your attorney brings a motion to strike the allegation that seeks money for the damage to the car, on the basis that the plaintiff was committing an illegal act by operating the car on the street. But for that illegal act, the car could not have been damaged.
The judge agrees and grants the motion. The successful motion does not dispose of the action – the negligence action still remains as to the $2,000 suit – but your exposure to the $2.4 million dollars in damages to the car is gone.
By any measure, that is a great result. Wouldn’t you agree? Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Stormy Daniels’ Action Against Trump Goes Down in Flames
I went to update this article based on recent news, and had to chuckle at all that has happened to the parties involved in the interim.
The Non Disclosure Agreement between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump is all back in the news because Trump has now been criminally charged for some still undefined crime, relating to the money paid to Daniels. But here is the legal history.
The tale began back in October 2018, when I first reported that adult film star Stormy Daniels was originally suing Donald Trump under a declaratory relief action, seeking to invalidate a “hush” agreement she has signed and been paid for. Her attorney, Michael Avenatti, then tried to get cute by filing a defamation action. The alleged defamation resulted from an incident that purportedly occurred in a parking lot, where Daniels says she was threatened to keep her mouth shut. Trump referred to the story in a Tweet as a “con job,” and Avenatti on behalf of Daniels claimed that amounted to defamation since Trump was accusing Daniels of lying. I predicted at the time that the action would be thrown out on an anti-SLAPP motion, and that proved to be true. The court concluded that Trump’s tweet was “rhetorical hyperbole” and was protected speech that could not be the basis of a defamation action. Daniels was hit with $293,000 in attorney fees.
But following the dismissal of the defamation action, I pointed out that still left the original declaratory relief action. Since the attorneys had presumably spent far more time on that matter than the ridiculous defamation claim, I said that Avenatti might get the last laugh as to attorney fees if he was able to prevail on that claim.
Avenatti isn’t laughing. Read the rest of this entry »
Just Because the Case Involves Speech, that Does not Automatically Make the Complaint a SLAPP
Oy. Some judges.
As the old saying goes, to a hammer everything looks like a nail, and I have confessed here that I have a natural bias to view every complaint I see as a SLAPP. But there are many a judge who take this to ridiculous extremes, with no thought of the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute.
Say it with me judges. “Just because the facts of a case involve speech, that does not automatically make the complaint a SLAPP.”
Today’s tale comes out of Monterey, California. The animal rights group PETA had a beef (see what I did there?) with the way a local zoo was treating its elephants. PETA didn’t like that the human trainers shared unrestricted space with the elephants. Apparently they walk along the elephants to herd them out to the show area, where they talk about the elephants to the paying public.
This presents a problem because if the elephants get unruly, the trainers have to use canes to encourage the elephants to stop acting up. It’s also not a totally safe practice. In 2018 a zoo employee was seriously injured by an elephant that did not like the “aggressive action” taken by an employee. There was a dispute between PETA and the zoo as to whether the use of canes was a violation of California law, designed to prevent cruelty to animals. Read the rest of this entry »
Imprecise Pleading Will Run Afoul of the Anti-SLAPP Statute
The SS Imprecise Pleading
The legal profession is like a cargo ship. When a cargo ship decides on a new course, the change is slow and ponderous. When the Supreme Court issues an opinion, the time for that decision to filter down to counsel is equally slow and ponderous.
An attorney who didn’t get the memo.
For example, my last article spoke of the attorney who just this past month based his anti-SLAPP motion on authority holding that any report to the police is absolutely privileged. But that hasn’t been the law for over two years. A report to the police is now only conditionally privileged, and all of the authorities he cited have been superseded.
And so it is with the holding of Baral v. Schnitt, in which the California Supreme Court decided how causes of action with both protected and unprotected speech should be handled. Despite being seven years old, it seems that most attorneys are unaware of the holding.
Which brings us to today’s case study.
Four plaintiffs sued the same defendant, alleging defamation and breach of contract. The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion against all four plaintiffs, and their attorney announced that she would oppose the motion, confident that she would succeed in defeating it.
One of the plaintiffs wanted a second opinion, and came to me. After meeting with me and seeing the veins in my skull expand as all the knowledge passed through, he decided to hire me to oppose the motion. The other three plaintiffs (who hadn’t seen the bulging veins thing) stayed with the original counsel.
So there were two oppositions to the anti-SLAPP motion – mine and the original attorney’s. As to my client, I defeated the motion. As to the other three plaintiffs, the motion was granted. My client is off the hook for any attorney fees.
Lest you think I worked some kind of voodoo magic to defeat the anti-SLAPP motion when the other attorney could not, my client’s situation was slightly different from the rest, and I was able to capitalize on the distinction. The other three were not similarly situated.
But here is what I observed.
Baral v. Schnitt allows the court to go into the complaint with a scalpel and cut out any allegations of privileged speech. It is not enough for a plaintiff’s attorney to simply conclude that there is enough in the action to meet the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. That’s all fine and good to keep the action moving forward, but if defense counsel can point to individual allegations that involve protected speech, and then plaintiff’s counsel can’t satisfy the second prong as to those allegations, the motion will be granted.
Here is an example of how this comes up, based on one of my pending motions, but modified to preserve privacy. Read the rest of this entry »
Slander Requires a Witness
You can’t prove slander without a witness.
I recently prevailed on back to back anti-SLAPP motions based on this simple defamation concept that often alludes attorneys and their clients. Plaintiffs bring a defamation action based on the assumption that the defendant is running around slandering them, but they have no witness to the alleged slander.
Apparently they assume that having filed the action, they will then be able to use the discovery process to find a witness. But this approach leaves them completely vulnerable to my anti-SLAPP motion. So long as I can convince the court that the alleged statements fall under the anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff is left with no means to satisfy the second prong of the analysis. They can’t prove that they are more likely than not to succeed on the action, since they can’t provide a witness to the statement. How can they prove the statement was defamatory, if they can’t prove that it was ever made?
I often have to explain this same reality to potential clients who want to hire me to pursue the action. They want to do exactly what the aforesaid plaintiffs did, that left them open to my attack. So the realities of prosecuting a slander action warrants a discussion on this site.
Don’t sue for slander if you don’t have a witness.
Let’s begin with some definitions. As you likely know, if one is defamed in writing, that is libel, and if the defamation is spoken, that is slander.
In the case of libel, you can show the defamation by offering the written document. This can make it easier to prove the case, since the evidence is right there in black and white. However, it is not as simple as some assume.
For example, let’s make you Sue Smith, and you live at 123 Main Street. You wake up one morning and while reading the paper over a cup of coffee (yes, there are some of us who still enjoy reading the paper), you come across an article that says, “Police report that Sue Smith, who resides at 123 Main St., was booked on suspicion of drunk driving. Officer Dave Friendly stated that this was Smith’s third drunk driving arrest, making it a felony.” None of it is true. Probably because of some snafu, the police got it wrong.
Do you have a viable defamation action? Most people who call want to sue the newspaper, but for the reasons set forth in this article, most likely that is a nonstarter.
The person who told the lie is Officer Friendly. So can you sue Officer Friendly, since the paper quoted him? Possibly, but even though the defamatory statement is right there in writing, you don’t yet have an action. How do we know Officer Friendly really said such a thing? It could be that the good officer said something completely different, and your action will be against the newspaper for getting it wrong. News outlets are protected when they accurately quote a public official, even if the official is wrong, but they’ll have to show that Officer Friendly really said what they say he said.
Slander is even tougher. Read the rest of this entry »
SLAPP033 – How to Defeat an anti-SLAPP Motion with Inadmissible Evidence
In Episode 33 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we revisit the California Supreme Court decision of Sweetwater Union High School District v. Gilbane Building Co. Our client was sued by an attorney, and we had the action dismissed by way of an anti-SLAPP motion. The attorney appealed, and in his briefs, he never mentioned the Sweetwater holding, and we sure were not going to bring it up. The Court of Appeal brought it up anyway. Would the attorney be able to reverse the ruling, based on evidence that might be admissible at trial?
We also discuss how sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. We were brought in to oppose an anti-SLAPP motion, but when the trial court kept continuing the hearing, I told the client, “wait for it, wait for it . . .”
And I tell the tale of nice woman who ran afoul of the anti-SLAPP statute with her cross-complaint, and was faced with a massive attorney fee application. She could not afford to hire us, but a little guidance from the wings saved her from disaster.
Podcast: Play in new window | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
A Curious Anti-SLAPP Victory Tale
The Saga of a Curious anti-SLAPP Victory Begins
A prospective client sent me a complaint he had received, thinking it might be a SLAPP. When I began handling anti-SLAPP matters almost 20 years ago, most attorneys were unaware of the law, let alone clients. I now get a surprising number of clients who are already aware of the law when they call, either from other attorneys who have referred them to me, or from their own research.
I reviewed the complaint, and after discussing the details with the client, I decided it was indeed a SLAPP.
Here are the facts.
The defendant, my client, grew concerned when he saw some bruises on his young grandchild. The child’s father had divorced, and after some questioning, the child reluctantly revealed that his mother’s new boyfriend was responsible for the bruises. My client immediately notified his son (the child’s father), who contacted the police and took the child to the hospital. The doctor, as a mandated reporter, contacted Child Protective Services.
The alleged abuser sued my client for defamation, and a myriad of other claims, alleging he had falsely reported child abuse to both the police and the doctor at the hospital.
Defamation is vastly different than personal injury.
I checked the website of the firm representing the Plaintiff. On the website, the attorneys refer to themselves as “The Talent.” I saw that their primary practice areas appear to be criminal law and personal injury. That explained a lot. I have encountered this phenomenon on a number of occasions. Personal injury attorneys bring defamation actions, assuming they will flesh out the facts through discovery as the action proceeds. Read the rest of this entry »
How I Defeated an anti-SLAPP Motion by Doing Almost Nothing
Sometimes delay can be a good thing. Here is the tale of an anti-SLAPP motion defeated by time.
Because of certain changed circumstances, a massive company, we’ll call it Optimus, found itself in a bad situation. The facts are very complicated, but here is a simplified, made-up analogy that will set the scene.
Picture that Optimus is in the cold-remedy business, and a number of its formulations contain acetaminophen. But one day it is discovered that when acetaminophen is aerosolized, it cures baldness, and can be sold at a much higher price for that purpose. All of the suppliers want to bail on providing acetaminophen to Optimus, so Optimus comes up with a complaint it intends to use across the country against its suppliers, to force them to honor their agreements. Optimus knows that the suppliers will claim that the new use is a better use for the acetaminophen, because curing baldness is obviously the best conceivable use of any drug, especially as compared to a little pain and fever relief during a cold. The complaint by Optimus will challenge that legal theory and, if successful, will get all its other providers back into line. Read the rest of this entry »
You Can Now Be Sued for Calling the Police
California recently turned defamation law on its ear, as regards calling the police. Let me set the scene with a hypothetical that will demonstrate what California has done.
You and your neighbor Bob have an ongoing dispute about whether your visitors can park on the street in front of his house. During a small gathering at your home, you happen to look out the window and see Bob spray painting “no parking!” on one of your guest’s cars. You report the incident to the police, and after seeing paint on Bob’s fingers matching the paint on the car, they take him away for booking.
Bob is quite a jerk, and is already on probation for a prior criminal offense. If he can’t figure out a way to beat this rap, he is going to spend some time in jail. So he comes up with a brilliant strategy.
He decides he will sue you in civil court for defamation, claiming you lied when you told the police that you saw him vandalizing the car. Whether or not he will win is of no importance. Rather, his plan is to make you spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting his defamation claim. You will soon realize that you really gain nothing by having Bob prosecuted, beyond seeing justice done. You will at some point ask yourself, “is that justice worth the $50,000 or more I am going to spend on attorneys, fighting against this defamation claim?”
SLAPP032 – The 3 Most-Often Miscited Anti-SLAPP Cases
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, 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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
Click "Amazon Music" for all episodes of California SLAPP Law Podcast