41 results for 'cat:"Anti-SLAPP" AND cat:"Defamation"'.
[Consolidated.] J. McFadden finds that the trial court properly granted the company's motion to dismiss the individual's defamation claim under Georgia's anti-SLAPP law. The individual alleged in a conversion and breach of fiduciary duty action that the company made false statements in responding to an SEC subpoena for records regarding a financial transaction. The alleged statements made by the company related to an official proceeding and concern protected activity. The individual's defamation claim was also untimely. The trial court incorrectly denied the company's request for attorney fees and improperly ordered the company to produce attorney-client privileged communications under a fiduciary duty exception. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: A24A0268, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
J. Wiley finds that the trial court properly denied special anti-SLAPP motions on most of a condo resident's defamation claims against his neighbors. The neighbors' emails furthered a personal dispute and did not contribute to a discussion of public issues. They were not sent to the general public, but were confrontational attempts at shaming the condo resident. And homeowners' association debates usually involve private issues, and are not per se connected to public issues. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Wiley, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: B317061, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Schock finds the lower court erred in denying anti-SLAPP special motions to dismiss an election technology employee’s conspiracy claim and properly dismissed his defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress for allegations the Trump Campaign made during the 2020 election campaign. The defendants’ accused the employee of stating he had “made sure” President Trump would not win by taking steps to interfere with the results. A broadcaster continued sharing and tweeting “information that is so vital to understanding the systemic stealing of our election.” The court holds that the Trump Campaign may be responsible for tweets sent by Trump and his son. Therefore, the tweets are remanded for further proceeding and for determination of attorney fees and costs. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Schock, Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: 2024COA35, Categories: anti-slapp, Elections, defamation
J. Gonzalez finds that the lower court properly dismissed a businessman's SLAPP suit against the AP for reporting on his vicious custody dispute. The article included threatening text messages sent by the businessman threatening to kill his wife, video footage of him doing drugs, and audio of him using racist language. None of the alleged defamatory statements are actionable because they are protected by fair reporting privilege, and are substantially true. The matter shall be remanded for a calculation of mandatory attorney fees. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Gonzalez, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 01898, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
Per curiam, the Vermont Supreme Court finds the trial court properly struck and dismissed a pro se complaint regarding defamation, libel, false light, and negligence claims against a newspaper and its journalist. The individual argues that the court abused its discretion when the newspaper and its journalist were awarded $14,741.80 in attorney fees and costs under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute. When the court ruled on the motion to strike, the fees were mandatory. Affirmed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 23-AP-338, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Zimmerer finds that the trial court should have dismissed the homeowner's direct defamation claims against the homeowners' association (HOA) pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The homeowner failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation against the HOA since she gave no evidence that it "published any statements about her." Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Zimmerer, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 14-23-00509-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Tijerina finds that the lower court properly denied the real estate broker's motion to dismiss the defamation countersuit filed by the board of directors for a realtor association. The appellant failed to show that the Texas Citizens Participation Act applied to the countersuit. Accordingly, the ruling to deny his dismissal motion was appropriate. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Tijerina, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00176-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, Civil Procedure, defamation
J. Garcia finds that the lower court properly granted the appellee homeowner's dismissal motion filed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act in this case alleging defamation, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The claims related to the appellee's right of free speech, as her communications "were made in connection with a matter of public concern." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Garcia, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 05-23-00343-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, Civil Procedure, defamation
J. Blacklock finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled against a newspaper publisher in a defamation case brought by a local prosecutor. The prosecutor alleged in his complaint that the newspaper falsely accused him of assisting in the wrongful prosecution of an individual. Both the trial court and court of appeals denied the newspaper’s attempt to have the case dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. Even if the article is not entirely accurate, the “gist” of it is true and is therefore protected and the case should have been dismissed. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Blacklock, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 22-0103, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Deahl upholds the lower court's award of $500,000 in attorney fees to a journal and author who succeeded on their Anti-SLAPP motion after a Stanford professor sued them for defamation for writing an article that criticized his research. The journal and author are considered prevailing parties, as the record shows it was the lower court's hint it was planning to dismiss the suit following the Anti-SLAPP motion that led the professor to voluntarily dismiss his case two days later. Affirmed.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Deahl, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 22-CV-0523 , Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Parraguirre finds the district court properly granted the Associated Press's anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss Steve Wynn's defamation claim against the reporter who published a story about an alleged rape committed by him. The AP met its evidentiary burden to establish its article was a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to free speech in connection with an issue of public concern. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Parraguirre , Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 85804, Categories: anti-slapp, Communications, defamation
J. Fuller finds that the trial court properly granted the shop owner's motion to dismiss the reviewer's libel action under Georgia's anti-SLAPP law. The action arose when the owner published a response to the reviewer's negative Google reviews, calling him a neo-Nazi who was targeting her business, harassing her and threatening to kill other shop members. The trial court correctly found that the owner's statements were protected speech. The owner's comments were made in response to review bombing initiated by the reviewer on a public forum and the reviewer conceded that he is a public figure. There is no evidence that the owner knew her statement about the supposed death threat was false or likely false. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Fuller, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: A23A1234, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. McAuliffe denies, in part, an individual’s motion to strike trader Markus Heitkoetter’s action against him under California’s Anti-SLAPP law. The commercial speech exemption applies to the videos at issue, which the individual posted on YouTube.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: McAuliffe, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv368, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Cadish finds the district court properly denied attorney fees for the appellate counsel. After the dentist sued the law firm for defamation, the law firm's special anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss was denied. The district court then entered summary judgment in favor of the law firm, awarding its trial counsel attorney fees, yet denying fees for its appellate counsel. The denial was based on the unsuccessful outcome of the anti-SLAPP appeal. All necessary factors were properly considered, and no abuse of discretion is found. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 83213, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
J. Benavides finds that the trial court properly granted summary judgement in favor of a couple, the Galvans, on defamation and emotional distress claims against another couple, the Crews. Some of the claims were properly dismissed based on the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, while the others were barred by res judicata. The Crews couple allege the trial court extended the summary judgment deadlines in violation of the scheduling order. However, the court overrules this allegation due to no authority being cited or adequately briefed. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Benavides, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 13-22-00289-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Emotional Distress
J. Wiley upholds the trial court denial of an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a homeowner in response to her contractor's defamation suit. Her online postings were not protected by litigation privilege because the public attacks on the contractor's professional reputation were not sufficiently connected to proceedings she initiated with the contractors licensing board. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Wiley, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: B313864, Categories: anti-slapp, Construction, defamation
J. Brown finds that the trial court properly denied an anti-SLAPP motion that was filed in response to a student's complaint for defamation, harassment, invasion of privacy and other claims. The student sued after his ex-girlfriend's emails got his acceptance to Dartmouth College rescinded. The focus of the emails was not a qualifying issue of public interest and did not further any public conversation on an issue of public interest. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Brown, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: A165224, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Dailey finds the lower court properly denied the customers' special motion to dismiss a defamation suit filed by the veterinary clinic under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute. The speech by the customers - a negative online review - did not implicate a public interest but was a public airing of a private dispute. Although the quality of veterinary care in the customers' community is an important concern for pet owners, the comments and reviews in this case were limited to the specific experiences of the customers and part of their attempts to put the clinic out of business; therefore, the speech was not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Dailey, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 2023COA114, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Joyce finds the trial court properly dismissed an individual's defamation suit under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute. “Plaintiff is a public figure and faces a higher burden to establish his claim, plaintiff must also establish proof that defendants acted with actual malice.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Joyce, Filed On: November 22, 2023, Case #: A178444, Categories: anti-slapp, Evidence, defamation
J. Wilson finds that the trial court partly erred in denying the motions to dismiss of the client and media consultant who were sued by an attorney for defamation over an alleged libelous video. The Texas Citizens' Participation Act motions should have been granted in part, for instance with respect to the invasion of privacy claims. Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: October 31, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00724-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
J. Markle finds that the trial court improperly denied the attorney's motion to strike a libel and slander action brought by the doctor arising from statements the attorney made to other attorneys with regard to a cease and desist order issued by the health department blocking the doctor's surgery center from performing orthopedic surgeries. The statements were conditionally privileged and made during private settlement communications with opposing counsel in pending litigation. The trial court therefore incorrectly denied the motion to strike the complaint under Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Markle, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: A23A0863, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Hassan finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the couple who sued a Korean language newspaper for defamation. The defamation claims were not barred by the statute of limitations, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Affirmed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Hassan, Filed On: October 5, 2023, Case #: 14-21-00636-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Lum finds a Black Lives Matter representative was not entitled to dismissal of the defamation claim filed by the director of the Board of Education for Denver Public Schools regarding a comment made following her testimony before the Colorado legislature. At that point, she was aware no criminal charges would be filed against the director and had asked the director to speak at a charity event, which would allow a reasonable jury to conclude she knew her statements about alleged sexual assaults were false at the time she made them. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lum, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 2023COA88, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Emotional Distress
J. Lum finds the lower court erroneously determined several statements made by the accusers were covered by absolute immunity. Although they were made in connection with a Title IX investigation, the student accused of sexual assault was not granted a hearing or able to call and cross-examine witnesses, which rendered the proceedings legislative, not quasi-judicial, in nature. Furthermore, the lower court erroneously granted the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss filed by the accusers and their mothers because the accused student's acquittal in a criminal trial and various inconsistencies in the accusers' stories would allow a reasonable jury to consider the emails sent after the criminal trial to be defamatory and sent with malice. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lum, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 2023COA87, Categories: anti-slapp, Immunity, defamation
J. Cohen finds that the trial court properly dismissed an individual's complaint for failure to state a claim of defamation after he was arrested for threating the state’s House speaker. The individual argues that the newspaper published an article out of hate with the headline reading, “Defendant who threatened House speaker released with several conditions.” The newspaper is entitled to attorney fees and to have the complaint stricken. Reversed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Cohen, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 22-AP-222, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
J. Thompson reverses the lower court dismissal of three retired military psychologists’ defamation action against the American Psychological Association and an attorney for their publication of a report that accused them of colluding with the Department of Defense to implement interrogation techniques that would not be restricted by APA ethical guidelines. The Home Rule Act precludes the application of the D.C. Anti-SLAPP
Act in this case. Reversed.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Thompson, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 20-CV-0318 , Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Military
J. Reichek finds that the lower court properly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The action asserts claims for defamation per se and business disparagement, based on multiple communications, including five text messages and one voicemail. The Act applies, but the appellees established a prima facie case for their claims. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Reichek, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 05-22-00616-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, Civil Procedure, defamation