- Baharian-Mehr v. Smith
(2010, 4th District – 189 Cal.App.4th 265, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 153) - Bailey v. Brewer
(2011, 2d District – 197 Cal.App.4th 781, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380) - Balla v. Hall
(2021, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 652, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 695) - Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC
(2009, 4th District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 782) - Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 688) - Plaintiff filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Michael Larivee and the Quisenberry Law Firm. The trial court allowed Larivee to join in the Quisenberry Law Firm’s special motion to strike and granted the motion even though the hearing was held more than 30 days after service. Affirming the lower court’s ruling, the appellate court found the hearing to be timely and held that joinder to a special motion to strike is effective as long as the joining defendant demonstrates that the action arises out of protected First Amendment activity.
- Barker v. Fox & Associates
(2015, 1st District – 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 511) - Baughn v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
(2016, 3d District – 246 Cal.App.4th 328, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 764) - Beach v. Harco National Insurance Co.
(2003, 3d District – 110 Cal.App.4th 82, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 454) - Plaintiff sued his insurer, alleging bad faith in handling his claim because of delay. The company filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing that, because the claim was eventually submitted to arbitration, the company’s processing of the claim was an exercise of its right of petition under the First Amendment and therefore protected by both the anti-SLAPP statute and the “litigation privilege” (Civil Code § 47(b)). The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. According to the court, the cause of action lies in nonaction and delays, not in any specific statement or writing by the company, and none of this conduct involved the company’s right of petition. Moreover, “the fact that a dispute exists that might ultimately lead to arbitration does not make every step in that dispute part of a right to petition.”
- Behunin v. Superior Court
(2017, 2d District – 9 Cal.App.5th 833, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 475) - Beilenson v. Superior Court
(1996, 2d District – 44 Cal.App.4th 944, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 357) - Beilenson defeated Sybert in an election for U.S. Congress. After the election Sybert sued Beilenson, a campaign worker, a consulting firm, and a campaign committee, alleging that Beilenson distributed libelous campaign literature. The lower court’s denial of Beilenson’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court holds that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements by candidates for public office and their supporters.
- Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales
(2018, 2d District – 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 71) - Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLCJune 29, 2021
(2021, Second District – 65 Cal.App.5th 1145, 280 Cal.Rptr.3d 662) - Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 1179, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 621) - Benasra sued lawyers who represented his business rival while still representing him, alleging breach of duty of loyalty. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The court reverses, holding that the court’s earlier decision in Jespersen v. Zubiate-Beauchamp — that a claim for legal malpratice is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint — applies to a complaint alleging breach of attorney duty of loyalty.
- Ben-Shahar v. Pickart
(2014, 2d District – 231 Cal.App.4th 1043, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 464) - Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 106 Cal.App.4th 978, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 364) - While Benitez was being treated for infertility at NCWCMG’s facility, she told her doctor she was a lesbian. Subsequently she encountered difficulties in receiving infertility treatment at NCWCMG. Benitez sued on a variety claims. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, on which the trial court did not rule. On appeal, Benitez argued that the motion is without merit and should be denied. The appellate court refuses to consider the issue on the grounds that there is no appealable order from the trial court.
- Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios
(2013, 1st District – 218 Cal.App.4th 418, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 423) - Benton v. Benton
(2019, 4th District – 39 Cal.App.5th 212, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 118) - Bergman v. Drum
(2005, 2d District – 129 Cal.App.4th 11, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 112) - Bergman sued attorney Drum for malicious prosecution of a case against her, and in response Drum filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The motion was denied and then affirmed in an earlier appeal, in which the appellate court concluded that Bergman had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on her claim. Thereafter the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant. In this appeal the court holds that the doctrine of the law of the case precluded summary judgment for the defendant because summary judgement was inconsistent with the appellate court’s previous ruling concerning the anti-SLAPP motion.
- Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
(2015, 2d District – 236 Cal.App.4th 793, 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 36) - Bernardo v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America
(2004, 4th District – 115 Cal.App.4th 322, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 197) - Plaintiffs sued Planned Parenthood under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), alleging that its websites contained “unlawful, unfair, confusing, and misleading statements” concerning abortion, and seeking injunctive relief. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted by the trial court after plaintiffs were unable to show a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claims for injunctive relief. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the state’s anti-SLAPP statute is unconstitutional on its face. The appellate court rejects all of plaintiffs’ arguments and affirms the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion.
- Bernstein v. LaBeouf
(2019, 2d District – 43 Cal.App.5th 15, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 173) - Bidari v. Kelk
(2023, 2d District – 90 Cal. App. 5th 1152) - Bikkina v. Mahadevan
(2015, 1st District – 241 Cal.App.4th 70, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 499) - BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc
(2024, 4th District – 99 Cal.App.5th 727, 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 126) - Birkner v. Lam
(2007, 1st District – 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190) - Bishop v. The Bishop’s School
(2022, 4th District – 86 Cal.App.5th 893, 302 Cal.Rptr. 3d 594) - Blackburn v. Brady
(2004, 4th District – 116 Cal.App.4th 460, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 696) - Blackburn obtained an undivided one-half interest in property co-owned by Brady and his partner Lanser at public auction in partial satisfaction of a money judgment against Lanser. In this action for partition Blackburn also alleges fraud, that Brady and Lanser conspired to drive up the value of the land at auction. Brady filed a special motion to strike the complaint for fraud, arguing that his written bid and any oral statements made at the auction were made in connection with an official proceeding, i.e., Brady’s lawsuit against Lanser, and thus was protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. The court agrees with existing case law that the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect every act having any connection, however remote, with an official proceeding. In order for statements or writings to be protected by the statute they must be made in connection with “an issue under consideration or review” in the proceeding.
- Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc.
(2004, 2d District – 123 Cal.App.4th 903, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 385) - DIRECTV sent letters to thousands of people who purchased devices that can pirate DIRECTV’s television signals, demanding that the recipients cease using the devices. Several recipients of these demand letters filed a complaint against DIRECTV, alleging that the mailing of the demand letters was an unfair business practice (Business & Professions Code, § 17200). DIRECTV filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirms, holding that the provision of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute that excludes public interest lawsuits does not apply to the plaintiff-purchasers’ action, and DIRECTV is entitled to have the complaint stricken.
- Bleavins v. Demarest
(2011, 2d District – 196 Cal. App. 4th 1533, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 580) - Blue v. Office of Inspector General
(2018, 3d District – 23 Cal.App.5th 138, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 590) - Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2017, 4th District – 13 Cal.App.5th 851, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 598) - Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2021, 4th District – 11 Cal.5th 995, 281 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678) - Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
(2022, 4th District – 83 Cal. App. 5th 288, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730) - Booker v. Rountree
(2007, 4th District – 155 Cal.App.4th 1366, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 733) - Bowen v. Lin
(2022, 2d District – 80 Cal. App. 5th 155)
- Bradbury v. Superior Court
(1996, 2d District – 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 207) - A deputy sheriff shot and killed a citizen during execution of a search warrant. Following an investigation by the district attorney, the deputy was exonerated. However, the DA’s public report of the investigation questioned the veracity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant. The deputy sued the district attorney for slander. The trial court’s denial of the district attorney’s special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. Held: the state’s anti-SLAPP statute applies to public employees who issue reports and comment on issues of public interest relating to their official duties. Moreover, public entities are “persons” for the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute and thus entitled to recover attorney fees when they prevail on a special motion to strike a complaint.
- Branner v. Regents University of California
(2009, 1st District – 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 690) - Braun v. The Chronicle Publishing Co.
(1997, 1st District – 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 58) - Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2004, 4th District – 116 Cal.App.4th 679, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 702) - Brenton sued for product liability and other causes of tort action, alleging that she suffered a psychotic breakdown after using a Metabolife product. She also alleged that Metabolife’s false advertising and misbranding of the product violated the state’s unfair business practices statute (Business & Professions Code § 17200). Metabolife moved to strike the entire complaint as a SLAPP, arguing that Brenton’s complaint targeted protected commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. According to the court, the specific issue in this case is a recurring one: whether a claim against a manufacturer for physical injury, allegedly caused by use of its product, is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute merely because the manufacturer also engaged in commercial speech to market the product. The court rejects Metabolife’s argument that its labeling and advertising of the product are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because they constitute, in the statute’s terms, written statements made in a place open to the public in connection with an issue of public interest. In addition, the court holds that the newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 (effective Jan. 1, 2004) expressly removes Brenton’s complaint for unfair business practices from the anti-SLAPP statute’s protection. (Section 425.17 provides that the anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint cannot be applied to “any cause of action brought against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, … arising from any statement or conduct by that person,” as long as certain conditions are met.) The court rejects Metabolife’s argument that section 425.17 is unconstitutional because it cannot withstand the strict scrutiny standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Publ. Serv. Comm’n (1980). (See also Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2003); Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc., 3d District Court of Appeal (2004).)
- Briganti v. Chow
(2019, 2d District – 42 Cal.App.5th 504, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 909) - Briggs v. Elliott
(2023, 4th District – 92 Cal. App. 5th 683) - Brighton Collectibles, LLC v. Hockey
(2021, 2nd District – 65 Cal.App.5th 99, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 518) - Brill Media Co., LLC v. TCW Group, Inc.
(2005, 2d District – 132 Cal.App.4th 324, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 371) - 74 affiliated media companies sued defendant bond holders and their related entities for breach of contract and interference with economic relations, alleging defendants caused the default of and liquidation of plaintiffs’ entities by breaching confidentiality agreements and interfering with pending contracts. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed, concluding plaintiffs’ claims arose out of commercial speech and conduct and therefore fell under the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute. Judge Bosk dissented.
- Britts v. Superior Court
(2006, 6th District -145 Cal.App.4th 1112, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 185) - Brodeur v. Atlas Entertainment, Inc.
(2016, 2d District – 248 Cal.App.4th 665, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 483) - Brown v. Grimes
(2011, 2d District – 192 Cal.App.4th 265, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 893) - Brown v. City of Inglewood
(2023, 2d District – 92 Cal. App. 5th 1256) - Burrill v. Nair
(2013, 3d District – 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 332)
Print This Page
The information on this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. The information here is meant to provide general information to the public.