Anti-SLAPP motion
You CAN Join an Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought by Another Party
I remember sitting in court – Judge Banks’ court in Orange County to be specific – and he called a motion for summary judgment that was on calendar, noting that another party had “joined” the motion. I see this all the time. One party files a demurrer, or a motion for summary judgment, or whatever, and an attorney representing a different party says, “hey, that’s a great idea,” and files a “notice of joinder” on the motion. You may have engaged in the behavior yourself.
But as Judge Banks explained to the unfortunate attorney, it doesn’t work that way. As he put it, “when you ‘join’ in a motion, it means only that you are cheering from the sideline, ‘go team go.’” The court has no power to bestow the requested relief on your client.
The reason should be self-evident. The evidence that is offered in support of a motion for summary judgment for one client may have no applicability to another. The missing elements that would justify sustaining a demurrer as to one party may not apply to another. If “joinder” were permitted, then the non-movant would be placed in a terrible quandary. He, she, or it would have to speculate on why the same arguments would apply to the joining party, and try to oppose them.
But with all that said, an anti-SLAPP motion presents a different analysis. Because of the two prong analysis, a defendant can ride on the coattails of another moving defendant. If the movant successfully argues that the conduct falls under the anti-SLAPP statute, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success. The second prong can then be decided without any evidence from the defendant who joined the motion.
In the case of a motion for summary judgment, for example, the moving defendant must present evidence sufficient to establish a complete defense to the targeted claims, or to show that the plaintiff will be unable to prove an essential element. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851. Simply joining the motion of another party does not satisfy this requirement.
But on a special motion to strike, the moving defendant need only demonstrate that the action arises out of protected First Amendment activity. Paul for Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1365. In Barak v. Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 660-661, the Court concluded that so long as one defendant met that burden, others could join.
But don’t take this too far. Obviously, if the complaint alleges different types of wrongdoing by the defendants, the court may not be able to rule as to the joining defendant. Complicating matters further, there were problems with the plaintiff’s opposition in Barak.
Nonetheless, if you find yourself in a situation where one of the other defendants has filed an anti-SLAPP motion, take a hard look to determine if it would make sense to join in the motion.
Mandated Arbitration Does Not Create a “Protected Activity”
A decision that involves both beer and anti-SLAPP law is right up my alley, so I had to bring you the details of Mission Beverage Company v. Pabst Brewing Company, LLC out of the Second District.
The importance of this case is the lesson it teaches in focusing on whether the conduct in question is indeed “protected activity” such that it satisfies the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. As I have stated here before, the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute has grown and grown, but attorneys must not give short shrift to the first prong.
I. Facts Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Anti-SLAPP motion, Case Results | Tags: Beer Law, LLC, Mission Beverage Company v. Pabst Brewing Company | No Comments »
SLAPP021 – Anti-SLAPP Motions Against Mixed Causes of Action
We discuss the very important case of Baral v. Schnitt, in which the California Supreme Court finally dealt with the split of authorities regarding how to deal with complaints with mixed causes of action; those that contain allegations of both protected and unprotected activities. This is probably the most important anti-SLAPP decision of the decade.
We also take a quick look at Hassell v. Bird, in which the Court of Appeal held that Yelp can be ordered to take down a false and defamatory post, even if it was not a party to the action.
Finally, I tell the tale of a very entertaining victory we had in Norwalk Superior Court, in front of a finger-wagging judge.
Podcast: Play in new window | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
Anti-SLAPP Motions in Federal Court – Some Judges Still Complaining
On August 3, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in the case Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Robert Hirsh.
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Robert Hirsh’s anti-SLAPP motion (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16) to strike the second amended complaint filed by Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America. Hirsh had alleged that Travelers’ claims arose out of his representation of Travelers’ insured, Visemer De Gelt, as Cumis counsel; and his activity was therefore protected under the anti-SLAPP statute.
The Ninth Circuit held that because Travelers’ causes of action were not based on an act in furtherance of Hirsh’s right of petition or free speech, they did not “arise from” protected activity, and thus did not satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The Court also held that Travelers established a probability of prevailing on the merits sufficient to survive a motion to strike. The Court further held that California’s litigation privilege, Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b), did not bar the suit because the causes of action arose from Hirsh’s post-settlement conduct, not his communications with De Gelt in settling a prior lawsuit.
Should we allow anti-SLAPP motions in Federal Court?
But like a number of appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit, Judge Kozinski and Judge Gould, although they concurred in the opinion, could not pass up the opportunity to complain about how anti-SLAPP motions in federal court were making them work too hard. Judge Kozinski decried that the existing case law is wrong, and he would urge the court to follow the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, which held that anti-SLAPP motions do not belong in federal court because they directly conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At the very least, Judge Kozinski urged the court to reconsider the holding in Batzel v. Smith, which allows defendants who lose anti-SLAPP motions to bring an immediate interlocutory appeal.
With all due respect, the reasoning of Judge Kozinski does not withstand scrutiny, as will be shown hereinbelow. What follows is Judge Kozinski’s concurring opinion, with my response to him in red on each of his points. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Anti-SLAPP motion, Case Results | Tags: Judge Kozinski, Travelers Casualty Insurance Company | No Comments »
‘American Hustle’ Producers Can’t Nuke Defamation Lawsuit – Hollywood Reporter
Paul Brodeur, a science writer who claims he was defamed by something Jennifer Lawrence said in David O. Russell’s 2013 film American Hustle, has survived an attempt to knock out his $1 million lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.
Source: www.hollywoodreporter.com
This is such an entertaining and ridiculous lawsuit.
In the movie American Hustle, Jennifer Lawrence plays a character named Rosalyn. The movie is set in the 70s, when microwave ovens were still relatively new, and Rosalyn makes the statement that microwaves cook the nutrition out of food. When another character questions that claim, she holds up a magazine and responds, “I read it in an article by Paul Brodeur.”
Paul Brodeur is a real person, and claims that the fictional statement from a fictional character hurts his reputation. During the 70s, Brodeur wrote about the dangers of microwave ovens, but he never stated that they take the nutrition out of food, and he therefore claims that the idea that he would have written this (fictional) article stating that food loses its nutrition when cooked in a microwave is akin to having Carl Sagan say that the sun revolves around the earth.
Brodeur should have been flattered that anyone remembered him, and laughed at the joke while enjoying his 15 minutes of renewed fame. But this is America, so he sued for a million dollars, claiming the statement was defamatory. The movie makers responded with an anti-SLAPP motion.
At the time, I expressed concerns about whether the judge would be convinced that the facts presented satisfied the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. Judges who can’t be made to understand anti-SLAPP law will often be too narrow minded as to what constitute public interest. My concerns were warranted, because the trial judge denied the motion under the first prong.
[UPDATE (June 6, 2016):] Cases such as this continue to show the importance of the automatic right of appeal, even from denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.
Paul Brodeur’s ridiculous lawsuit survived the anti-SLAPP motion, which would have doomed the defendant (Atlas Entertainment, Inc.) to litigate issues through trial, were it not for the automatic right of appeal. That ability to demand a second look at the applicability of the anti-SLAPP statute resulted in the dismissal of this waste of court resources.
As it had to, the Court of Appeal held:
American Hustle is, after all, a farce. The stage was set at the beginning of the film. (‘Some of this actually happened,’ is the line that appears on screen to start things off, and it sets the tone perfectly.”) The character who utters the allegedly defamatory statement is portrayed throughout the movie as ‘slightly unhinged’ and ‘a font of misinformation,’ and Irving and Rosalyn both refer to the microwave oven as the ‘science oven.’ We doubt any audience member would perceive any of Rosalyn’s dialogue as assertions of objective fact.
The trial court had refused to grant the anti-SLAPP motion, finding no matter of public interest in the film. The Court of Appeal dismissed this position almost out of hand.
[I]t is likewise beyond dispute that the anti-SLAPP statute, including the scope of the term “public interest,” is to be construed broadly. (Nygard, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1039-1042 [discussing cases and legislative history of 1997 amendment adding the directive to construe the statute broadly].) Nygard concludes: “Taken together, these cases and the legislative history that discusses them suggest that ‘an issue of public interest’ within the meaning of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) is any issue in which the public is interested. In other words, the issue need not be ‘significant’ to be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute — it is enough that it is one in which the public takes an interest.
The Court of Appeal found myriad bases of public interest, from the fact that the film was so popular, to the interest the public has in actors and casting, to the interest in the Abscam investigation in particular (upon which the movie is based) and the 1970’s in general.
The second important takeaway from this case is procedural; namely, don’t get so caught up in the minutia that you lose sight of the fundamental points.
Brodeur was all in a tizzy because what he wrote about in the 1970s was that microwave ovens were unsafe due to the radiation they put out. He never claimed that food cooked in a microwave was unsafe, and certainly never claimed that they take the nutrition out of food. The entire point of his case was that he was defamed by the statement of this fictional character, claiming he had written that microwaves take the nutrition out of food. In his unverified complaint, he alleged he “has never written an article or ever declared in any way that a microwave oven ‘takes all of the nutrition out of food.’”
But the allegations of the complaint are not evidence. Thus, in opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, the most important evidence to present (at least in the context of the ridiculous claim being made) was that Brodeur had never stated that a microwave takes all of the nutrition out of food. Incredibly, according to the Court of Appeal, Brodeur’s attorneys failed to offer evidence to establish that fact. It could have been established by simply providing a declaration from Brodeur stating exactly what he alleged in his complaint. By failing to do so, Brodeur failed to make a prima facie showing of falsity.
In a defamation action, the specter of an anti-SLAPP motion and the concomitant attorney fees hangs over the complaint like the Sword of Damocles. Far too many attorneys turn a blind eye to this danger, and pursue a defamation claim under the ill-defined idea that the suit will bring a quick settlement, or that they will somehow survive any challenges.
I can’t speak to the mindset of counsel in this case. But someone sat down at a keyboard, and actually typed allegations asserting that the words said in a fictional movie by a fictional character — who was specifically portrayed as not knowing what she was talking about — were actionable. At some point, that should have raised red flags.
When Considering an Anti-SLAPP Motion, Focus on the Gravamen of the Complaint
I am the anti-SLAPP guy, and I’d be the last to criticize creative applications of the anti-SLAPP statute. But sometimes it is as though the attorney bringing an anti-SLAPP motion only read the Cliff Notes on the process. He knows some of the buzz words, such as “public interest” and “protected speech”, but lacks the big picture. When considering an anti-SLAPP motion, you must consider the true gravamen of the complaint.
Case in point is the recent Court of Appeal opinion in Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. B264493), arising from the efforts to build a football stadium in the City of Carson. The ruling of the Court of Appeal, published on May 31, 2016, can be found here.
Carson wanted to build a stadium and entertainment complex, and was hoping to woo the NFL to relocate a team there. Carson hired a lobbyist, of sorts, Richard Rand, giving him an exclusive arrangement to negotiate with the NFL.
Things between Rand and the city got off to a rocky start, leading Rand to successfully sue Carson for civil rights violations, alleging that the Mayor had demanded a bribe. The city and Rand both appealed, with the city claiming it had never happened, and Rand claiming he should get more in damages.
The parties eventually settled, but Carson did not honor Rand’s exclusivity arrangement. Rand sued again, this time for breach of contract and other claims.
“Well,” thought the city’s attorneys, “this whole football stadium thing is generating a ton of public interest, and anti-SLAPP motions can be brought where the situation is a matter of public interest, so let’s bring an anti-SLAPP motion.”
And that’s just what they did. The city challenged Rand’s action with an anti-SLAPP motion.
“Well,” thought the judge, “this whole football stadium thing is generating a ton of public interest, and anti-SLAPP motions can be brought where the situation is a matter of public interest, so I guess I should grant the anti-SLAPP motion.”
And that’s just what he did. Apparently having read the same Cliff Notes, the judge granted the anti-SLAPP motion. Rand appealed. Read the rest of this entry »
SLAPP019 – Five Best Published Anti-SLAPP Decisions (so far) in 2016
On Episode 19 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we go through my five favorite reported anti-SLAPP decisions from the first half of 2016.
But first we begin with a cautionary tale of an attorney who is being sued for malpractice for failing to have me review his complaint before it was filed! (OK, there’s a back story here, so be sure to listen to this episode to find out what I’m talking about.)
Then, we turn to the five best published anti-SLAPP decisions from the first half of 2016. The bold cases are the top five; the non-bolded are other cases I discuss as well.
Lanz v. Goldstone (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 441
Another cautionary tale, this time of an attorney who followed the old adage, “the best defense is a good offense.” He tried to intimidate an attorney from seeking his legal fees, and bought himself a malicious prosecution action in the process. You’ll learn a lot about malicious prosecution actions and under what circumstances they can survive an anti-SLAPP motion.
Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43
Speaking of malicious prosecution actions, this is the seminal case.
Sierra Club Foundation v. Graham (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1135
“When the proceeding terminates other than on the merits, the court must examine the REASONS for termination to see if the disposition reflects the opinion of the court OR THE PROSECUTING PARTY that the action would not succeed.”
Karnazes v. Ares (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 344
Speaking of over-pleading, our second case is Karnazes v. Ares, decided by the Second District in January of 2016. In this case, the plaintiff alleged 22 – count em – 22 causes of action against the defendants. Karnazes lost to an anti-SLAPP motion, but made some interesting arguments in opposition to that motion.
Sweetwater Union School District v. Gilbane Building Company (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 19
Are political bribes protected by the anti-SLAPP statute? Listen to find out (and the answer will likely surprise you). And find out how you can support an anti-SLAPP motion with declarations without using declarations.
Crossroads Investors v. Federal National Mortgage Association (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 529
It may look like litigation, and it may quack like litigation, but that doesn’t necessarily make it litigation for purposes of the litigation privilege and the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis.
JM Manufacturing v. Phillips & Cohen (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87
Yet one more action against an attorney; in this case an attorney who was so proud of his firm’s trial victory that he published a press release and bought the firm a defamation action. It was a split decision.
And finally, in the after show, I provide an appeal tip that might save you from some embarrassment.
Podcast: Play in new window | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
SLAPP017 – An Introduction to California SLAPP Law and Anti-SLAPP Motions
In Episode 17 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we go back to basics, with an introduction to the fundamental concepts behind California’s SLAPP Law and anti-SLAPP motions.
The good news is that although it took some 25 years for attorneys to begin recognizing the impact of California’s anti-SLAPP statutes on litigation in the state, they are now aware of the statute (sometimes painfully so). But it is clear that there are still some misconceptions about the law, including the fundamental terminology and procedures. Listen to this episode, and you’ll have a great understanding of what a SLAPP is, and what sort of activities fall under that anti-SLAPP statutes. Read the rest of this entry »
Podcast: Play in new window | Embed
Subscribe: RSS
Bill Cosby to Give New Deposition in Janice Dickinson’s Defamation Lawsuit
Bill Cosby will give a new deposition in the defamation lawsuit from Janice Dickinson over her allegations of sexual assault.
The former supermodel told Entertainment Tonight in November 2014 the comedian drugged her into unconsciousness and raped her. Cosby’s former attorney Martin Singer responded in a statement to the media calling Dickinson’s story “an outrageous defamatory lie” and “completely fabricated.”
In a hearing Monday, judge Debre K. Weintraub ordered Dickinson will depose Cosby and Singer by Nov. 25 on whether they knew if her allegations were true before denying them to the press. The testimony will follow Cosby’s recent deposition in Judy Huth’s lawsuit (which will be sealed until a Dec. 22 hearing in which the sides will argue if the testimony should be public).
Sourced from: www.hollywoodreporter.com
Recent developments in one of the actions against Bill Cosby illustrate the availability of limited discovery after an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, and how defamation claims are sometimes used to resurrect actions that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitation.
Joining the bandwagon of Cosby accusers (or perhaps she was the first) Janice Dickinson stated that she was drugged and raped by Cosby many years ago. Any action for that alleged assault would be far past the statute of limitations, but when Cosby denied the allegations, Dickinson was then free to sue for defamation, claiming that by denying that the rape had occurred, Cosby was in essence calling her a liar. (Or in this case, Cosby’s attorney actually did call her a liar.)
This is a common tactic, and puts an accused party in a precarious position. They can remain silent, in which case everyone will think and the press will report that they must be guilty since they are not denying the charges, or they can speak up and deny the charges, in which case they face a defamation action. Cosby chose to claim innocence, and the defamation suit followed.
Cosby responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, and that led to Dickinson’s request for leave to take Cosby’s deposition.
Celebrities enjoy a benefit that the rest of us plebes don’t, and that is that anything said about them is deemed to be a matter of public interest, triggering the anti-SLAPP statute. The downside is that said celebrities are deemed to be public figures, and given the inherent ability of celebrities to respond to criticism by simply calling a press conference, the law imposes an extra requirement on them to prove defamation. To successfully sue for defamation, they must show that the purportedly defamatory statements were made with malice. Since Dickinson is also a celebrity, she must therefore show that when Cosby called her a liar, he did so with malice.
One way to prove malice is to show that the person making the comment knew it wasn’t true. And thus we go full circle. Dickinson says Cosby raped her, Cosby says he didn’t, so Dickinson says that’s proof of malice because he raped her and knows it.
When an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, the plaintiff can request leave to conduct discovery, and here Dickinson requested leave to take Cosby’s deposition, to prove the malice. It’s a long shot, because the only way Cosby’s testimony would prove malice is if he admits that he raped Dickinson and knew he had raped her when he denied the claim. (Or, I suppose, Cosby could get befuddled and say he doesn’t remember.)
A Real-World Application of the Anti-SLAPP Motion Analysis
I was recently retained to consult on an anti-SLAPP motion in Orange County Superior Court, and the hearing on the motion was set for today. This particular judge is very good about issuing tentative rulings, but the rulings are often published on-line just shortly before the 1:30 hearing time. Knowing the tentative ruling is essential for oral argument since you know where the judge is going, and can address those specific points. (Truth be told, attorneys are seldom successful in getting a judge to reverse his or her tentative, but sometimes it can be done when the judge has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law that can be cleared up, or has misapplied the law to the facts.)
So my procedure is to open a window to the tentative rulings, which will be the rulings from the prior week, and periodically refresh the window until the current rulings appear. When our tentative ruling finally did pop up, it was just to inform us that the judge had decided to continue the hearing on our motion for a few weeks. This can happen when a judge’s docket doesn’t leave him or her enough time to work up and decide all the motions, or they just think more time is needed to decide a particularly challenging motion. I prefer to think that our legal analysis was so impressive that the judge just wanted more time to savor it, but who knows.
But while I was on the list of tentative rulings, I saw that the judge had decided an anti-SLAPP motion in another case. The ruling piqued my interest, so I pulled a copy of the cross-complaint to see what the case was all about. That will be the subject matter of this article.
I present the case summary and ruling here because they present a great example of how a judge analyzes an anti-SLAPP motion. I get numerous calls and emails from potential clients either wanting to prosecute an anti-SLAPP motion or needing to defend against one, where the facts they want to present are largely speculation. But to borrow an old cliché, an anti-SLAPP motion is where the rubber meets the road, and your allegations must be provable facts. The case also presents a very good example of just how expansive the litigation privilege can be. I will also take this opportunity to discuss the proof necessary for the particular causes of action that were pursued in this case. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Anti-SLAPP motion, Case Results | Tags: anti-SLAPP analysis, Judge James J. Di Cesare | No Comments »
Click "Amazon Music" for all episodes of California SLAPP Law Podcast