anti-SLAPP: Court Has Jurisdiction to Strike and Award Attorney Fees

  The California Supreme Court, in Barry v. The State Bar, holds that a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over a claim may nonetheless grant a special motion to strike the claim under section Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, and thus may award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing defendant.

Employer’s Malicious Prosecution Claim Subject to Anti-SLAPP

  Unemployment Insurance Code section 1960 provides that any finding, judgment, or final order of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board shall not be used as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding between an employee and present or prior employer.

  In  Kurz v. Syrus Systems the Court of Appeals held that section 1960 operated as a bar to the maintenance of a cause of action for malicious prosecution in a cross-complaint Kurz’s prior employer asserted against Kurz. The offending cause of action alleged that Kurz had maliciously prosecuted a meritless claim for unemployment insurance benefits that terminated in Syrus’s favor when the claim was denied and the denial was upheld on appeal by a decision of the Board. Continue reading

Bright Line Extortion Exception to Anti-SLAPP Statute

iStock_000004954568XSmall  The Second Appellate District adopts a bright line exception to the anti-SLAPP statute pursuant to the Supreme Court opinion in Flatley v. Muro: The statute does not apply to any litigation communications which constitute criminal extortion as a matter of law. Continue reading