California SLAPP Law

Aaron Morris: Anti-SLAPP Attorney

Anti-SLAPP Motions and SLAPP-back Actions

  1. 04/21/2025

    SLAPP035 – Understanding the Public Interest Requirement

    In Episode 35 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we take a deep dive into what constitutes a matter of public interest under the anti-SLAPP statute. It is apparent from the motions we are defeating that counsel is sorely lacking an understanding of this important point. As was held in the Supreme Court case of FilmOn v. DoubleVerify, it’s not enough to simply point to some amorphous matter of public interest. The challenged speech must be “closely related” to that public interest, AND it must somehow “advance the discussion” on the public interest. We also discuss the craziest appeal Morris & Stone has ever faced. The defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied, but only because of a procedural snafu. The patient Judge denied the motion without prejudice, and invited opposing counsel to refile the motion. No harm, no foul. So why did the attorney instead file an appeal? And is the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion even appealable when it was denied without prejudice? Listen to Episode 35 for the answers. The post SLAPP035 – Understanding the Public Interest Requirement appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    23 min

  2. 04/15/2024

    SLAPP034 – Are Calls to the Police Still Protected Speech?

    In Episode 34 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we examine the amendment to Civil Code section 47, which changed calls to the police from being absolutely privileged, to only conditionally privileged. Attorneys who sue for calls to the police, do so at their peril, as opposing counsel learned. And we are happy to report that Morris & Stone created a new legal precedent, having to do with what we have long referred to as “all-or-nothing” anti-SLAPP motions. In Baral v. Schnitt, the California Supreme Court held that individual allegations of protected speech can be stricken from a complaint. But what if a defendant brings an anti-SLAPP motion that asks only to strike the entire complaint? How should the court handle it, when the defendant then changes course, and asks in the reply brief for individual allegations to be stricken? Listen to Episode 34 for the answer. The post SLAPP034 – Are Calls to the Police Still Protected Speech? appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    16 min

  3. 09/19/2022

    SLAPP033 – How to Defeat an anti-SLAPP Motion with Inadmissible Evidence

    In Episode 33 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we revisit the California Supreme Court decision of Sweetwater Union High School District v. Gilbane Building Co. Our client was sued by an attorney, and we had the action dismissed by way of an anti-SLAPP motion. The attorney appealed, and in his briefs, he never mentioned the Sweetwater holding, and we sure were not going to bring it up. The Court of Appeal brought it up anyway. Would the attorney be able to reverse the ruling, based on evidence that might be admissible at trial? We also discuss how sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. We were brought in to oppose an anti-SLAPP motion, but when the trial court kept continuing the hearing, I told the client, “wait for it, wait for it . . .” And I tell the tale of nice woman who ran afoul of the anti-SLAPP statute with her cross-complaint, and was faced with a massive attorney fee application. She could not afford to hire us, but a little guidance from the wings saved her from disaster. The post SLAPP033 – How to Defeat an anti-SLAPP Motion with Inadmissible Evidence appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    20 min

  4. 06/20/2021

    SLAPP032 – The 3 Most-Often Miscited Anti-SLAPP Cases

    We begin Episode 32 with the discussion of how Morris & Stone just defeated an anti-SLAPP motion. I reveal the common (and fatal) mistake made by defense counsel when they pursue anti-SLAPP motions. And on the topic of mistakes, based on my prior article, we turn to the three cases that counsel almost always cite improperly when defending against an anti-SLAPP motion. Listen and find out what these three cases really stand for: Nguyen-Lam v. Cao (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 858. Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122. Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299. Finally, in the after-show, I reveal a successful strategy to obtain a trial continuance, even when the judge has already said no. The post SLAPP032 – The 3 Most-Often Miscited Anti-SLAPP Cases appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    29 min

  5. 05/16/2021

    SLAPP031 – A Gambler Bets Wrong on the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    In Episode 31, in addition to an anti-SLAPP case, we examine another example of how opposing counsel blew an opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment, by being unaware of the procedure rules. The limit for the memorandum of points on a typical motion is 15 pages, but a motion for summary judgment is a big deal, so the rules graciously allow 20 pages for that type of motion. The same rule applies to the opposition. But this attorney offered up a 60 page memo. How did we use that error to seal his doom? Listen to Episode 31 to find out. Next we turn to the case of Mike Postle, a professional gambler. Some accused Postle of cheating at a particular poker tournament. He took umbrage with that, and sued 12 of his accusers. We would have told poor Mr. Postle the tale of Joe the Alcoholic, which made clear that he could not prevail on his defamation claim. Listen for all the details, and the only possible silver lining in Postle’s debacle.   The post SLAPP031 – A Gambler Bets Wrong on the Anti-SLAPP Statute appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    19 min

  6. 05/03/2021

    SLAPP030 – Is it Defamatory to Call Someone a “Crook?”

    Fun, fun, fun in the California sun at Morris & Stone. In just the past couple of weeks, we (1) Obtained a 3.9 million dollar defamation verdict for one client; (2) Got another client out of a 7 million dollar case on a motion for summary judgment, and (3) Were awarded our fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion, even though the motion did not dispose of every cause of action. In Episode 30 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast, we discuss the facts of the aforementioned anti-SLAPP motion, and the motion for attorney fees that followed. This particular anti-SLAPP motion presented some really interesting issues, as did the motion for attorney fees. As to the anti-SLAPP motion, we examine whether it can ever be defamatory to call someone a crook. It might seem so, but how exactly does one define a crook in order to offer evidence that one is not a crook? As to the motion for attorney fees, how does the court handle such a request when the underlying anti-SLAPP motion was only partially successful? Along the way, we are again reminded why it is so crucial to know the procedural rules governing any motion you bring. The post SLAPP030 – Is it Defamatory to Call Someone a “Crook?” appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    20 min

  7. 03/22/2021

    SLAPP029 – Can Attorneys Sue Their Clients for Malicious Prosecution After a Fee Dispute?

    In episode 28, we discussed the attorney who sued his own client for malicious prosecution. The client had challenged the fees charged by the attorney by way of the informal fee arbitration process, and when he lost the attorney turned around and sued for malicious prosecution. Incredibly, the court denied our motion, so we had to take it up on appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with our position that a fee arbitration cannot be the predicate for a malicious prosecution case, and therefore the attorney could not possibly prevail on the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. In Episode 29, we discuss the court’s decision, as well as the motion for attorney fees that followed. The attorney provided a 65-page report from an expert witness who challenged our fees and hourly rate, but the judge was having none of it. The post SLAPP029 – Can Attorneys Sue Their Clients for Malicious Prosecution After a Fee Dispute? appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    18 min

  8. 03/14/2021

    SLAPP028 – An Exception to the Absolute Police Report Privilege?

    Some of our anti-SLAPP cases are breaking new legal ground through some very interesting fact patterns. Penal Code section 11172 You are probably aware that certain professionals are required to report any child abuse situation of which they become aware. Penal Code section 11172 was created in order to afford those mandated reporters immunity against defamation claims potentially arising from their reports. But that same statute includes the following wording as regards persons who are not mandated reporters: Any other person reporting a known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect shall not incur civil or criminal liability as a result of any report authorized by this article unless it can be proven that a false report was made and the person knew that the report was false or was made with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report, and any person who makes a report of child abuse or neglect known to be false or with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report is liable for any damages caused. But hold on Maude. Civil Code 47 and Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 both afford what has always been held to be an absolute privilege for reports to the police. Does Penal Code section 11172 carve out an exception? Listen to Episode 28 for the answer. Can an attorney sue for malicious prosecution based on a fee arbitration? Ahhh, the benefits of hindsight. Episode 28 of the California SLAPP Law Podcast was recorded almost a year ago, but I never got around to editing and posting it. In addition to reporting on our recent victories at that time, it included the tale of an anti-SLAPP motion that had not gone in our favor, and was still up on appeal. I promised at the time to report on the results of the appeal. [Spoiler alert: We won on appeal and the anti-SLAPP motion was granted.] As I was editing the podcast today, I was struck by the fact that it seemed to come from another era; like finding a journal entry where you referred to stopping at a pay phone or expressed how much you liked your Angel Flight pants. I discuss how I traveled to San Francisco to argue the case to the Court of Appeal. Can you imagine? Actual, face-to-face argument to the court? What an archaic notion. In the next episode of the California SLAPP Law Podcast I will report on the opinion by the Court of Appeal, but if you can’t wait, you can read all about it on the California SLAPP Law website. You’ve got to know when to fold them . . . Finally, I tell the tale of a plaintiff who just did not know when to fold them . . . know when to walk away . . . know when to run. We defeated her case with an anti-SLAPP motion. It was apparent each step of the way that her counsel just did not know the law in this area. Ever helpful, we explained each step of the way what we were going to do if he proceeded with his plans, and what it would cost his client. After spending probably tens of thousands of dollars in activities we advised against, Plaintiff had to finally pay the piper. The post SLAPP028 – An Exception to the Absolute Police Report Privilege? appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

    21 min
See All (35)

4.9
out of 5
15 Ratings

About

Anti-SLAPP Motions and SLAPP-back Actions

Information

  • Creator
    Aaron Morris: Anti-SLAPP Attorney
  • Years Active
    2014 - 2025
  • Episodes
    35
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Copyright Random Thoughts Publishing 2014
  • Show Website
    California SLAPP Law