- M.F. Farming Co. v. Couch Distributing Co., Inc.
(2012, 6th District – 207 Cal.App.4th 180, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 160) - M.G., a minor, v. Time Warner, Inc.
(2001, 4th District – 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504) - An article in Sports Illustrated about adult coaches who sexually molest youths included a photograph of a Little League team, five players of which were molested by the manager. M.G. (andothers) appeared in the photo and sued for invasion of privacy. The trial court’s denial of a special motion to strike is affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the anti-SLAPP statute applied to the publication of the story. Time Warner argued that the photo was not private and its publication met the test of newsworthiness. Plaintiffs argued the photo was private and not newsworthy. The court concluded that plaintiffs had demonstrated the likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim, thus fulfilling their burden under the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Macias v. Hartwell
(1997, 2d District – 55 Cal.App.4th 669, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 222) - An unsuccessful candidate for a labor union office sued the successful candidate, alleging that defendant’s campaign flyers were defamatory. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed. The “anti-SLAPP law applies to defamation actions arising out of statements made in a union election.”
- Major v. Silna
(2005, 2d District – 135 Cal.App.4th 1485, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 875) - In connection with an election, defendant Silna mailed a letter to a number of Malibu residents supporting certain candidates. Plaintiff Major filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Malibu Municipal Code. Silna filed an anti-SLAPP motion which the trial court denied, finding that Major’s action fell within the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17(b) exemption to the anti-SLAPP law.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding that section 425.17 did not apply because subdivision (d)(2) excepts from this exemption “[a]ny action against a person … based upon the … dissemination … or similar promotion of any … political … work.” The court further held that Major could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits because he lacked standing to seek injunctive relief.
- Maleti v. Wickers
(2022, 6th District – 82 Cal.App. 5th 181) - Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co.
(2010, 4th District – 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 487) - Malin v. Singer
(2013, 2d District – 217 Cal.App.4th 1283, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 292) - Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc.
(2009, 2d District – 173 Cal.App.4th 1040, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 457) - Manlin v. Milner
(2022, 2d District – 82 Cal. App. 5th 613) - Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (“Mann I”)
(2004, 4th District – 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 215) - The court holds that where a defendant has shown that a substantial part of a cause of action constitutes speech or petitioning activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff need only show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim. Once the plaintiff makes this showing, the court need not determine whether the plaintiff can substantiate all theories for that cause of action.
- Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (“Mann II”)
(2006, 4th District – 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 607) - Plaintiff challenged an attorney fees award, arguing that defendants were not prevailing parties within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (c) because they were unsuccessful in striking three of the four challenged causes of action. The appellate court held that “a party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the motion,” and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining defendants were prevailing parties on the anti-SLAPP motion. However, it found that the lower court erred in failing to reduce the fees to reflect that defendants were only partially successful on the motion and ordered the fees reduced by 50%.
- Maranatha Corrections, LLC v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(2008, 3d District – 158 Cal.App.4th 1075, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 614) - Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffy
(2006, 2d District – 137 Cal.App.4th 1262, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 867) - Plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution action against defendant and its counsel. Each defendant filed anti-SLAPP motions, which were denied on the basis that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. The appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish probable cause.
- Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 488) - Marshall v. Webster
(2020, 3d District – 54 Cal.App.5th 275, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 530) - Martinez v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 113 Cal.App.4th 181, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 494) - Martinez sued Metabolife for personal injury, alleging that the injury was caused by ingestion one of Metabolife’s products. Metabolife filed a special motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the complaint targeted commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirms. This case was decided shortly before Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 became effective (Jan. 1, 2004). Section 425.17 states that the anti-SLAPP motion cannot be applied to any complaint against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services where the cause of action arises from advertising or other commercial speech. (See also Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc., 4th District Court of Appeal (2004); Scott v. Metabolife International, Inc., 3d District Court of Appeal (2004).)
- Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(2011, 4th District – 198 Cal. App.4th 611, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 410) - Mary’s Kitchen v. City of Orange
(2023, 4th District – 96 Cal.App.5th 1009) - Matson v. Dvorak
(1995, 3d District – 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880) - An unsuccessful candidate for a local legislative office sued a rival candidate and several contributors to an organization that published a flyer accusing him of having “hundreds of dollars of unpaid fines and citations” issued by the police, alleging libel and invasion of privacy. The trial court’s granting of defendant’s special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
- Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
(2002, 2d District – 99 Cal.App.4th 1179, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 794) - Defendant law firm prosecuted a case for copyright infringement against Mattel, maker of the Barbie doll. A federal district court found for Mattel, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the trial court that the case for copyright infringement was without factual foundation. Mattel then sued the law firm in state court for malicious prosecution. The trial court denied a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeal rules that an action for malicious prosecution qualifies for treatment under the anti-SLAPP statute and affirms the trial court’s judgment that the plaintiff had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its action.
- Maughan v. Google Technology Inc.
(2006, 2d District – 143 Cal.App.2d Dist 1284, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 861) - McGarry v. University of San Diego
(2007, 4th District – 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 467) - McNair v. Superior Court
(2016, 2d District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1227, 211 Cal Rptr 3d 919) - Medallion Film LLC v. Loeb & Loeb LLP
(2024 – 2nd District – 100 Cal.App.5th 1272, 319 Cal.Rptr.3d) - Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45) - (modified 3-20-2020 – 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 237)
- Medley Capital Corporation v. Security National Guaranty, Inc.
(2017, 1st District – 17 Cal.App.5th 33, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 736 - Melbostad v. Fisher
(2008, 1st District – 165 Cal.App.4th 987, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 354) - Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc.
(2010, 2d District – 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 294) - Mendoza v. Hamzeh
(2013, 2d District – 215 Cal.App.4th 799, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 832) - Mendoza v. Wichmann
(2011, 3d District – 194 Cal.App.4th 1430, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 823) - Metcalf v. U-Haul International, Inc.
(2004, 4th District – 118 Cal.App.4th 1261, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 686) - Metcalf sued U-Haul for unfair competition, alleging that it consistently overstated the size of its rental trailers in advertisements. U-Haul filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the complaint arose from its constitutionally protected right to commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirms. At issue on appeal is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, which prevents defendants sued for false advertising from using the anti-SLAPP motion and which became effective after the complaint in this case was filed. The court rejects appellant’s contentions that section 425.17 is unconstitutionally discriminatory and that in any event it cannot apply to a case in progress.
- Midland Pacific Building Corp. v. King
(2007, 2d District – 153 Cal.App.4th 499, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 129) - Miller v. City of Los Angeles
(2008, 2d District – 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 510) - Miller v. Filter
(2007, 3d District – 150 Cal.App.4th 652, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 671) - Miller v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
(2019, 1st District – 41 Cal.App.5th 247, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 124) - Mireskandari v. Gallagher
(2021, 4th District – 59 Cal.App.5th 346, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 371) - Mission Beverage Company v. Pabst Brewing Company, LLC
(2017, 2d District – 15 Cal.App.5th 686, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 547) - Mission Oaks Ranch, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara
(1998, 2d District – 65 Cal.App.4th 713, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 1) - Note: This opinion was disapproved by the California Supreme Court in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity.
- Mission Oaks applied to the county for a tract map for property development and agreed to pay for an environmental impact report (EIR). The draft EIR found that Mission Oaks’ project would have numerous adverse and unmitigable consequences. Mission Oaks sued the county for breach of contract, alleging that it was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the county and the consultant that prepared the EIR. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is upheld. “Here Mission Oaks is simply a disgruntled developer who does not like the findings prepared by the independent environmental consultants for the County and the public. Mission Oaks seeks to stifle the EIR prepared for the County and the public. [The] SLAPP [statute] is designed to preclude such attempts to silence those who speak out on matters of public interest before legislative bodies.” The court distinguished this case from Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. C.S.I. Telecommunications Engineers.
- Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Verjil
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 892, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 524) - Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies, LLC
(2021, 2nd District – 70 Cal.App.5th 207, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 211) - MMM Holdings, Inc. v. Reich
(3/12/2018, 4th District – 21 Cal.App.5th 167, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 198) - Mobile Medical Services, etc. v. Rajaram
(2015, 4th District – 241 Cal.App.4th 164, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 568) - Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club, Inc. v. City of Lancaster
(2012, 2d District – 208 Cal.App.4th 124, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 122) - Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 483
(1999, 6th District – 69 Cal.App.4th 1057, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 10) - Hotel sued union alleging defamatory statements by a union official in a news report of a labor dispute at the hotel. The trial court granted the union’s special motion to strike the complaint. The appellate court affirms, holding that plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case of slander in its pleadings.
- Moore v. Kaufman
(2010, 2d District – 189 Cal.App.4th 604, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 196) - Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District v. Weir
(2004, 1st District – 115 Cal.App.4th 477, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 13) - After a homeowners association submitted a rebuttal argument against a tax increase for a voter information pamphlet, the fire district sought a court order modifying or eliminating certain statements in the association’s argument. The association filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the fire district’s petition and then denied the association’s request for attorney fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute on the grounds that, since the mandamus proceeding had been resolved on the merits, the anti-SLAPP motion was moot. On appeal the fire district contends that challenges to statements in voter pamphlets are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute and that the statute must be “harmonized” with provisions in the Elections Code authorizing legal challenges to false or inaccurate voter pamphlets. The appellate court rules that the anti-SLAPP statute is not inconsistent with the Elections Code, that it does apply in this case, and the association is entitled to fees and costs.
- Morin v. Rosenthal
(2004, 2d District – 122 Cal.App.4th 673, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 149) - Moriarty v. Laramar Management Corp.
(2014, 1st District – 224 Cal.App.4th 125, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 461) - The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that it was untimely. Defendants had argued that they could not have filed the motion any sooner because they had a motion pending to transfer the case to another district of the superior court. The appellate court affirms.
- Morris Cerullo World Evangelism v. Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC
(2021, 4th District – 67 Cal.App.5th 1149, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 164) - Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2007, 2d District – 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 885) - Moss Bros. Toy, Inc. v. Ruiz
(2018, 4th District – 27 Cal.App.5th 424, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 292) - Muddy Waters, LLC v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County
(2021, 4th District – 62 Cal.App.5th 905, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 204)
- Mundy v. Lenc
(2012, 2d District – 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 464) - Murphy v. Twitter Inc.
(2021, 1st District – 60 Cal.App.5th 12, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 360) - Murray v. Tran
(2020, 4th District – 55 Cal.App.5th 10, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 231) - Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC
(2021, 2nd District – 72 Cal.App.5th 802, 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 625)
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.