- Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea
(2009, 4th District- 175 Cal. App. 4th 1363; 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 196) - Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Foods and Commercial Workers Union Local 8
(2011, 5th District – 192 Cal.App.4th 200, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 878) - Ralphs Grocery Company v. Victory Consultants, Inc.
(2017, 4th District – 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 305) - certified for publication
- Ramona Unified School District v. Tsiknas
(2005, 4th Distict – 135 Cal.App.4th 510, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 381) - Ramona Unified School District (District) sued Neighborhood Alliance for Safe Ramona Schools (Alliance) for abuse of process and barratry stemming from Alliance’s writ petition challenging a District construction project. The trial court granted Alliance’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirmed. It held that the gravamen of the abuse of process claim was actually for malicious prosecution, and was barred under City of Long Beach v. Bozek, California Supreme Court, 1982, which held a government entity may not institute a malicious prosecution proceeding against a former plaintiff. To succeed on the barratry claim, plaintiffs had to show the defendants “excited” at least three groundless lawsuits, however defendants’ amendments to their writ petition did not constitute separate proceedings.
- Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson
(2016, 2d District – 247 Cal.App.4th 1080, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 46) - Ratcliff v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
(2022, 2nd District – 79 Cal.App.5th 982) - Reed v. Gallagher
(2016, 3d District – 248 Cal.App.4th 841, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 178) - Renewable Resources Coalition , Inc. v. Pebble Mines Corp.
(2013, 2d District – 218 Cal.App.4th 384, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 901) - Reyes v. Kruger
(2020, 6th District – 55 Cal.App.5th 58, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 549) - Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
(2004, 2d Distict – 116 Cal.App.4th 135, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 333) - Several individuals sued Sony Pictures under the state’s unfair competition statute, alleging that Sony falsely portrayed a person as a film critic and attributed to him laudatory reviews of its films. The studio filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint; the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that advertisements for films, as commercial speech, are not protected under the First Amendment. The appellate court (in a split decision) affirms.
- Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, Inc.
(2019, 1st District – 32 Cal.App.5th 458, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 816) - Rivera v. First Databank, Inc.
(2010, 4th District – 187 Cal.App.4th 709, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 1) - Rivero v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
(2003, 1st District – 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 81) - Rivero sued numerous individuals and entities, alleging defamation and other claims arising from statements made by the union as part of its contract negotiation campaign. Rivero, a supervising janitor at a university, had been accused of theft, extortion, and favoritism by employees he supervised. Although the charges were not substantiated by an investigation, Rivero’s position was terminated and he was assigned work as a pot scrubber. During contract negotiations with the university the union distributed flyers that claimed union janitors had stood up to their “abusive supervisor” and caused his firing. The union filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the statements made by the union during contract negotiations do not fall under activity protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court affirms. Most of the court’s opinion focuses on the phrase “in connection with a public issue” in the anti-SLAPP statute.
- RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc.
(2020, 4th District – 56 Cal.App.5th 413, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 425) - Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Association
(2003, 2d District – 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 546) - Roberts was a candidate in an election for municipal court judge in Los Angeles. The bar association evaluates all candidates in contested elections for judgeships through its judicial evaluation committee. A candidate may request disqualification of any member of the committee who the candidate believes has a potential conflict of interest. Roberts objected to seven members of the committee. The day after the committee publicly issued an evaluation of Roberts as “not qualified,” Roberts sued the association for breach of contract and fraud based on the allegation that one of the committee members who should have been disqualified at her request was actually present during committee deliberations. The association filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint; the trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the suit, which sought damages in connection with the evaluation process, was not a SLAPP. The appellate court reverses on the grounds that the evaluation process is “inextricably intertwined with and part and parcel of the evaluations,” which are constitutionally protected speech. Thus, the anti-SLAPP statute applies as much to the evaluation process as to the evaluations themselves.
- Robertson v. Rodriguez
(1995, 2d District – 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 464) - A city councilman, alleging libel, sued proponents of a campaign to recall him. At issue was a mailer stating that the plaintiff had been fined by the city for operating an illegal business out of his home. The trial court’s granting of a special motion to strike the complaint is affirmed.
- Robinzine v. Vicory
(2006, 1st District – 148 Cal.App.4th 1416, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 65) - Robles v. Chalilpoyil
(2010, 6th District – 181 Cal.App.4th 566, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 628) - Roche v. Hyde
(2020, 1st District – 51 Cal.App.5th 757, 265 Cal.Rptr.3d 301) - Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC
(2014, 2d District – 225 Cal.App.4th 660, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 431) - Rohde v. Wolf
(2007, 2d District – 154 Cal.App.4th 28, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 348) - Rosenaur v. Scherer
(2001, 3d District – 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 674) - Rosenaur launched a ballot initiative to permit commercial development of land he owned. The measure lost after a bitterly fought campaign. Rosenaur sued defendants, opponents of the measure, alleging defamation. The trial court granted a special motion to strike the allegation. The appellate court affirms, holding that the statements alleged to be defamatory could not reasonably be interpreted as factual and therefore plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case for defamation. Rosenaur also appealed the award of attorney fees to defendants, arguing that defendants are not entitled to recover attorney fees because defense counsel agreed to a partial pro bono fee. Held: neither the plain language of the anti-SLAPP statute nor the policies underlying it justifies denying a prevailing defendant attorney fees when representation is pro bono.
- Ross v. Kish
(2006, 2d District – 145 Cal.App.4th 188, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 484) - Rudisill v. California Coastal Com.
(2019, 2d District – 35 Cal.App.5th 1062, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 840) - Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Association
(2005, 4th District – 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133) - Ruiz alleged that two letters written by HVCA’s attorney defamed him. The trial court denied HVCA’s anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that the letters were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the two letters were communications regarding an issue of public interest. The court further found that Ruiz had not shown a probability of prevailing: he failed to show the second letter was defamatory, or that either letter had been published. However, the court remanded with directions for the trial court to reconsider Ruiz’s request for discovery only on the issue of publication of the first letter and decide the anti-SLAPP motion accordingly.
- Russell v. Foglio
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 653, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 87)
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.