-
Edward v. Ellis
(2021, 4th District – 72 Cal.App.5th 780)) - Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC
(2014, 3d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 490) - Endres v. Moran
(2006, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 786) - Plaintiffs sued, claiming defendants had committed various torts as part of a wrongful attempt to control a church. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted for only one of the eleven causes of action (for conspiracy). The trial court denied defendants’ motion for attorneys fees and defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the results of the anti-SLAPP motion were so minimal and insignificant that the case remained essentially the same, and the defendants were not prevailing parties, justifying the lower court’s ruling that defendants should not recover fees.
- Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. C.S.I. Telecommunications Engineers
(1996, 1st District – 49 Cal.App.4th 1591, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 491) - Note: Opinon disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.Ericsson sued a consultant who recommended another company’s proposal to supply and install a communications system for Ventura County, alleging that the consultant intentionally misrepresented the merits of Ericsson’s proposal. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is reversed. The appellate court concludes that the consultant’s report was prepared in fulfillment of a contract, not for the purpose of speaking out on a public issue (expenditure of public funds).
- Escamilla v. Vannucci
(2023, 1st District – 97 Cal. App. 5th 175, 315 Cal. Rptr. 3d 312) - Evans v. Unkow
(1995, 1st District – 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 624) - A former public official sued individuals who had filed a notice of petition to recall him from office, alleging that statements made in the notice were defamatory. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action, and held that evidence opposing a special motion to strike a complaint must be admissible and declarations may generally not be based on information or belief.
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.