California’s anti-SLAPP statute is a powerful tool. It allows the trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims very early, if the claims arise from an act in furtherance of the rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue, unless the plaintiff can show a probability of success. There’s been an explosion of anti-SLAPP rulings in recent years, and many of those rulings make their way to the appellate courts. GMSR has successfully handled anti-SLAPP appeals addressing an array of issues.
Jeff Raskin discusses the Supreme Court’s recent and upcoming decisions in the quickly-developing area of anti-SLAPP jurisprudence.
In the last two years, the California Supreme Court has decided as many anti-SLAPP cases as it did in the prior seven years combined. The Court has an additional nine anti-SLAPP cases currently pending on its docket. In the Winter 2018 ABTL Report, Jeff Raskin
Anti-SLAPP motions in probate? Alana Rotter explains a new decision applying the anti-SLAPP statute to petitions to enforce a no-contest clause.
Litigators are used to seeing anti-SLAPP motions in civil cases. But a new California Court of Appeal decision highlights that anti-SLAPP motions are also an option in the probate context, to challenge a petition to enforce a will or trust’s no-contest clause. Alana Rotter discusses
GMSR Wins Affirmance Of Anti-SLAPP Ruling
Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1271. A physician sued a hospital and some doctors, alleging that the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges was motivated by retaliatory animus. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the suit under the anti-SLAPP statute. On the first
Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Oct. 6, 2017, B263095) 2017 WL 4510849
GMSR wins affirmance of anti-SLAPP ruling
Appealing Anti-Slapp Rulings in the Ninth Circuit
In the California state courts, every order granting or denying an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable. But anti-SLAPP appealability is more of a minefield in the Ninth Circuit. There, an anti-SLAPP ruling is appealable only if it satisfies the requirements of the “collateral order doctrine”
Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Aug, 22, 2014, B247957) 2014 WL 4162789 [nonpublished opinion]
Court of Appeal affirms application of anti-SLAPP statute to summary suspension of medical staff privileges
Court of Appeal affirms application of anti-SLAPP statute to summary suspension of medical staff privileges
Adams v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2014) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5942 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Two years after Cedars-Sinai summarily suspended a physician’s medical staff privileges, he sued Cedars-Sinai for denial of his right to practice medicine. The trial
Nama Holdings v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (Aug. 7, 2013, B238449) 2013 WL 4034358 [nonpublished opinion]
A real estate LLC retained GMSR’s law firm client to represent its managers in a suit brought by one of the LLC’s investors. Arbitrators ultimately held that the managers had not acted in good faith which, among other things, arguably negated the LLC’s obligation to
GMSR defends law firm client’s anti-SLAPP dismissal of fraudulent conveyance claim for accepting payment for its services
NAMA v. Dorsey & Whitney (2013) 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5592 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four) [unpublished]. A real estate LLC retained GMSR’s law firm client to represent its managers in a suit brought by one of the LLC’s investors. Arbitrators
9th Circuit Judges Call for an End to Anti-SLAPP in Federal Court, Los Angeles Daily Journal (May 9, 2013)
In a Daily Journal article, Alana Rotter discusses anti-SLAPP practice in the Ninth Circuit and why it may come to an end.
Browse By Practice Area
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.