First Amendment & Anti-SLAPP
We help advocates exercise their constitutional and statutory free speech rights.
More than thirty years ago, California enacted a law to protect the victims of “SLAPP” cases (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”), which are lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. In the typical case, a large business interest limits free expression by imposing litigation costs on citizens who protest their activities. The statute calls for early dismissal of claims if they arise from a defendant’s acts in furtherance of free speech rights in connection with a public issue and if a plaintiff cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing. Our attorneys won early landmark cases applying the law and continue to consistently secure victories for our clients.
Representative Work
-
We won an anti-SLAPP motion filed in a lawsuit brought by a developer seeking damages and an injunction against a community group for allegedly false statements and publications regarding a development project. The dismissal order was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in a published opinion. (Dean v. Friends of Pine Meadow (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 91.)
-
We successfully brought an anti-SLAPP motion in response to a challenge to a candidate’s ballot label, securing an award of attorneys’ fees. (Schreiner v. Logan, L.A. Sup. Ct., No. BS164451.)
-
We prevailed and recovered fees on multiple anti-SLAPP motions filed in response to defamation and libel lawsuits relating to protected speech in our clients’ campaign mailers. (Crenshaw v. Cole, San Diego Sup. Ct., No. 37-2014-00082099; McCann vs. San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, San Diego Sup. Ct., No. 37-2014-00035198.)
-
We secured and defended on appeal the dismissal of multi-million-dollar civil rights claims lodged against a collection of homeowners and an unincorporated homeowners' association for providing testimony to a planning commission regarding a proposed development in their neighborhood. (Roy v. Mount Washington Homeowners Alliance, Cal. Ct. App., No. B219407.)
-
We prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion filed in response to a petition for a writ of mandate to prevent a candidate from using the title “Mayor” in a ballot designation. The trial court originally denied the motion on the ground that our client had already prevailed by getting the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeal reversed and held that we were entitled to a hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion even though the case had already been dismissed on other grounds. (Carlson v. Kelley, Cal. Ct. App., No. G040924.)
-
We secured the dismissal of a variety of torts claims filed against an archeologist for making statements critical of a surveyor during the public review period for proposed development at a university. (Dixon v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 73.)
-
We also have extensive experience successfully defending our clients against anti-SLAPP motions. For example, in 2021, we defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against the California Insurance Commissioner over the conservation and proposed rehabilitation plan of a workers’ compensation insurer.
