There is no cognizable claim for intentional infliction of physical distress under California law. See Free v. Peikar, No. 1:17-cv-00159 MSJ (PC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61985, at *17 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) ("Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for intentional infliction of physical distress. There is no such claim, however, under California law."). Further, we are unaware … [Read more...] about Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?
California
Can an anti-SLAPP Motion Be Filed In Federal Court?
This is a question that comes up quite frequently and appears to be a source of some confusion. The law is that motions to strike a state law claim are proper in California Federal courts, e.g., libel, slander, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. This is so because there is no conflict between the Federal rules and Code of Civil Procedure 425.16(b). … [Read more...] about Can an anti-SLAPP Motion Be Filed In Federal Court?
The California Supreme Court’s anti-SLAPP Decisions
Here is a list of the California Supreme Court's 24 decisions to date regarding the SLAPP statute. This is a great starting point to learn about this very complicated and interesting area of law. Here they are in reverse chronological order. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Pierce Gore (2010) WL 1948283 Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1 In re Episcopal Church … [Read more...] about The California Supreme Court’s anti-SLAPP Decisions
What Is A “Public Forum” For Purposes Of The Anti-SLAPP Statute?
The purpose of the so-called “SLAPP” statute is to eliminate lawsuits brought “primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.16(a). Courts engage in a two-part analysis focusing first on whether the disputed cause of action arises from … [Read more...] about What Is A “Public Forum” For Purposes Of The Anti-SLAPP Statute?