Taheri Law Group v. Evans
(2008, 2d District – 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 847)
Takhar v. People ex rel. Feather River Air Quality Management Dist.
(2018, 3d District – 27 Cal.App.5th 15, 237 Cal.Rptr.3d 759)
Talega Maintenance Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp.
(2014, 4th District – 225 Cal.App.4th 722, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 453)
Tendler v. www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com
(2008, 6th District – 164 Cal.App.4th 802, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 407)
Appellant Tendler obtained a pre-lawsuit discovery order in an Ohio state court directed to Google, from whom he sought to learn the identities of the anonymous individuals who had posted statements about him on the Internet that he believed were defamatory. Tendler then filed a request for subpoenas in Santa Clara County Superior Court premised on the Ohio discovery order. The anonymous individuals filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The court held that a request for a subpoena is not a “cause of action,” and therefore cannot be subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. In his concurrence, Justice McAdams urged the Legislature to consider whether the anti-SLAPP law should be expanded to include such third-party subpoena requests. As of Jan. 1, 2009, amendments to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1 and 1987.2 provide that in a successful motion to quash such a subpoena, the court shall award the amount of the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in making the motion.
Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
(2011, 2d District – 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 264)
Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of University of California
(2019, 1st District – 40 Cal.App.5th 659, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 394)
Technology Credit Union v. Rafat
(2022, 6th District – 82 Cal.App.5th 314)
Terry v. Davis Community Church
(2005, 3d District – 131 Cal.App.4th 1534, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 145)
Plaintiffs, employees of Davis Community Church, sued the church and others for defamation and emotional distress, alleging that church officials falsely accused them of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor in the course of their church work. The trial court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court affirms the order, concluding that private communications concerning issues of public interest are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (see Averill v. Superior Court) and plaintiffs had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their claims.
Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
(2012, 1st District – 207 Cal.App.4th 141, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 17)
Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin
(2020, 4th District – 49 Cal.App.5th 366, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 814)
Traditional Cat Association, Inc. v. Gilbreath
(2004, 4th District – 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 353)
This case arose because of a split in the ranks of organized cat breeders. The founder of The Traditional Cat Association sued defendants for allegedly defamatory statements published on their website. The trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, concluding that plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on their complaint. The court’s decision was based on its ruling that defendants’ statute of limitations defense in their anti-SLAPP motion was not a proper issue for determination under the terms of the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court finds this conclusion erroneous. Moreover, it rejects plaintiffs’ argument that a cause of action for defamation arising from statements posted on a website arises continuously while the website is operating, holding that the single publication rule in the law of defamation applies to statements published on websites. Because defendants posted the alleged defamatory statements more than a year before plaintiffs filed their complaint, the action for defamation is barred by the statute of limitations. This is the first California court to adopt the single-publication rule for web publishing.
Thomas v. Quintero
(2005, 1st District – 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 619)
Quintero was part of organized public protests against Thomas, his landlord. After Quintero and others appeared at Thomas’s church, Thomas took action against Quintero by filing a petition seeking injunctive relief against civil harassment (Civil Code section 527.6). Quintero responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reverses. Held: A Section 527.6 petition to enjoin civil harassment is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. However, an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), issued pending a hearing on the petition for injunctive relief, is not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion. The request for a TRO does not qualify as a “cause of action” under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill
(2009, 6th District – 177 Cal.App.4th 1049, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 661)
Timothy W. v. Julie W.
(2022, 4th District – 85 Cal.App.5th 648))
Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard
(2014, 4th District – 222 Cal.App.4th 1447, 166 CAl.Rptr.3d 729)
Towner v. County of Ventura
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 761, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 891)
Trapp v. Naiman
(2013, 4th District – 218 Cal.App.4th 113, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 462)
Trilogy at Glen Ivy Maintenance Assn. v. Shea Homes, Inc.
(2015, 4th District – 235 Cal.App.4th 361, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 8)
Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company
(2020, 4th District – 50 Cal.App.5th 920, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 892)
Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc.
(2021, 2d District – 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 831)
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company
(2021, 2d District – 63 Cal.App.5th 211, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 579)
Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District
(2003, 4th District – 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 57)
Plaintiff sued the Port for a variety of business-related causes of action, alleging that the Port had interfered with an exclusive negotiating agreement between plaintiff and others concerning development of bayfront property. The Port filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the lawsuit arose from the Port’s review of plans for the development. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal plaintiff argued that no issue concerning the development project was before the Port in any official process when the Port commented on the project. Even if that were true, the appellate court says, the project was nevertheless a matter of public interest and therefore the Port’s comments were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Because the court also finds that plaintiff did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims, it affirms the grant of the motion.
Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court
(2017, 1st District – 12 Cal.App.5th 1233, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 382)
Tukes v. Richard
(2022, 2d District – 81 Cal.App.5th 1, 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 707)
Turnbull v. Lucerne Valley Unified School District
(2018, 4th District – 24 Cal.App.5th 522, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 488)
Turner v. Vista Pointe Ridge HOA
(2009, 4th District – 180 Cal.App.4th 676, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 750)
Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera
(2006, 1st District – 136 Cal.App.4th 164, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 21)
Plaintiff Tutor-Saliba Corporation sued the City Attorney of San Francisco for allegedly defamatory statements he made in a speech before the San Francisco Chinese-American Democratic Club regarding a lawsuit he had filed against plaintiff. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the alleged defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47(a) (“official duty privilege”), as well as under Government Code sections 821.6 and 820.2 (“prosecutorial immunity” and “discretionary immunity,” respectively). The appellate court affirmed.
Tuszynzka v. Cunningham
(2011, 4th District – 199 Cal.App.4th 257, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 63)
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.