- Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc.
(2003, 4th District – 109 Cal.App.4th 39, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 420) - This class action against Twin Laboratories, which manufactures and markets nutritional and dietary supplements, alleged violation of various statutes because of false advertising of product ingredients. Twin Labs moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that its advertising was commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. The trial court agreed that defendant’s labeling and advertising were protected commercial speech but also concluded that plaintiffs had established a probability of prevailing on their claims, therefore defeating the motion. The appellate court affirms the denial but on the grounds that a list of product ingredients is not commercial speech protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Nam v. Regents of University of California
(2016, 3d District – 1 Cal.App.5th 1176, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 687) - Navarro v. IHOP Properties, Inc.
(2005, 4th District – 134 Cal.App.4th 834, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 385) - Plaintiff sued IHOP for fraud alleging that IHOP never intended to keep its promise made in a stipulated judgment to consider offers to purchase her franchise “without undue delay.”; IHOP appealed the trial court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that 1) the Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 exemption did not apply because any promises or statements made by defendant were to induce settlement of a lawsuit and were not made during a commercial transaction; 2) the complaint arose from defendant’s statements in, or in connection with a judicial proceeding; and 3) plaintiff did not prove a probability of prevailing on her claim because the statements IHOP made during a stipulated judgment were protected by the litigation privilege and she failed to show causation.
- Navellier v. Sletten
(2003, 1st District – 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 201) - Plaintiffs brought actions for fraud and breach of contract. Defendant moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, the motion was denied, and the appellate court affirmed on the grounds that the causes of action — negotiation and execution of a release agreement and pursuit of counterclaims in litigation — were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (unpublished opinion). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the causes of action were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and remanded the case to the court of appeal with instructions to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. (See Navellier v. Sletten, California Supreme Court.) Specifically, the court was directed to consider whether plaintiff had established a probability of prevailing on its complaint. In this opinion the court holds that the plaintiffs have not established a probability of prevailing on their claims and thus reverses the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.
- Nelson v. Tucker Ellis, LLP
(2020, 1st District – 48 Cal.App.5th 827, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 250) - Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist.
(2012, 4th District – 204 Cal.App.4th 65, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 446) -
Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
(2021, 4th District – 71 Cal.App.5th 769, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 631) - Neville v. Chudacoff
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 383) - Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism
(2016, 4th District – 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 216) (ordered published 12/26/16) - (re-appealed, 2018, 4th District – 23 Cal.App.5th 28, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 540)
- Nguyen-Lam v. Cuoung Cao
(2009, 4th District – 171 Cal.App.4th 858, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 205) - Nirschl v. Schiller
(2023, 2d District – 91 Cal. App. 5th 386) - Northern California Carpenters Regional Council v. Warmington Hercules Associates
(2004, 1st District – 124 Cal.App.4th 296, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 918) - A carpenters’ union and individuals sued building contractors for failure to pay them prevailing wages under city’s Redevelopment Agency’s policy, alleging unfair business practices. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the lawsuit was retaliation for their petition to a state agency for a determination that they were not required to pay prevailing wages. The motion was denied by the court on the grounds that the cause of action did not arise from filing a petition with the state but from failure to pay prevailing wages. On appeal plaintiffs argued that the court was required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17 to affirm the trial court’s denial. Section 425.17 was intended to curb abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute by providing that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to “any action brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public.” The appellate court affirms the trial court’s ruling, holding that the plaintiffs’ complaint meets the conditions of section 425.17. (See also Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc..)
- Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.
(2006, 1st District – 143 Cal.App.1st 1284, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 861) - Nunez v. Pennisi
(2015, 6th District – 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 912) - Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula
(2008, 2d District – 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210)
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.