- Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(2002, 2d District – 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 187) - Kajima sued the City for payment for work and the City cross-complained of breach of contract. Kajima moved to strike the cross-complaint as a SLAPP; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirms the denial. The court concludes that the allegations in the City’s cross-complaint arose from Kajima’s bidding and contracting practices, not from “acts in furtherance of its right of petition or free speech.” The court states: “We publish this opinion … to emphasize that a cross-complaint or independent lawsuit filed in response to, or in retaliation for, threatened or actual litigation is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute simply because it may be viewed as an oppressive litigation tactic. No lawsuit is properly subject to a special motion to strike under section 425.16 unless its allegations arise from acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech.”
- Karnazes v. Ares
(2016, 2d District – 244 Cal.App.4th 344, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 155) - (modified 2-26-16)
- Kashian v. Harriman
(2002, 5th District -98 Cal.App.4th 892, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 576) - Kashian was chairman of the board of trustees of a nonprofit community hospital, which planned to build a for-profit hospital in partnership with several physicians. Harriman, a public-interest lawyer, wrote a letter to the state attorney general asking for an investigation of the hospital’s tax-exempt status, alleging that Kashian had a pecuniary interest in certain of the hospital’s transactions. Kashian sued Harriman for defamation and unfair business practices; the latter complaint was based on the allegation that Harriman was engaged in the practice of litigation designed to “extort settlements” that benefitted Harriman. The trial court granted Harriman’s special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Its lengthy opinion is devoted in large part to a discussion of whether the immunity from liability under Civil Code section 47 (the “litigation privilege”) applies to allegations of violations of the state’s “unfair business practice” statute (Business & Professions Code section 17200).
-
Keading v. Keading
(2021,1st District – 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 338) - Kemps v. Beshwate
(2009, 5th District – 180 Cal.App.4th 1012, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 480) - Kenne v. Stennis
(2014, 2d District – 230 Cal.App.4th 953, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 198) - Kettler v. Gould
(2018, 2d District – 22 Cal.App.5th 593, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 580) - Key v. Tyler
(2019, 2d District – 34 Cal.App.5th 505, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 224) - Kieu Hoang v. Phong Minh Tran
(2021, 2d District – 60 Cal.App.5th 513, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 567) - Kim v. R Consulting & Sales, Inc.
(2021, ourth District – 67 Cal.App.5th 263, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 918) - Kinsella v. Kinsella
(2020, 4th District – 45 Cal.App.5th 442, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 725) - Km v. Access Insurance Company
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 595, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 711) - Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky LLP
(2013, 4th District – 215 Cal.App.4th 534, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 599) - Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & Hammerton
(2006, 4th District – 145 Cal.App.4th 1532, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 712) - Kreeger v. Wanland
(2006, 3d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 779) - Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Data Base, Inc.
(2007, 2d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 941, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 48) - Kunysz v. Sandler
(2007, 4th District – 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 779) - Kurwa v. Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP
(2007, 2d District – 146 Cal.App.4th 841, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 256) - Kurz v. Syrus Systems, LLC
(2013, 6th District – 221 Cal.App.4th 748, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 554) - Kyle v. Carmon
(1999, 3d District – 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 303) - Plaintiff school superintendent dismissed his complaint with prejudice against our client, Shelly Carmon, after we filed an anti-SLAPP motion but before the court had ruled on the motion. The trial court issued an order granting the motion to strike and awarding attorneys fees and costs. The Court of appeal held that the trial court’s adjudication of the merits of the motion supported affirmance of the award of attorney’s fees and costs.
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.