Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Why CA's Anti-SLAPP Statute Should Apply to Peer Review
California law protects defendants from lawsuits designed to thwart “a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” The “anti-SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute provides this protection by permitting the defendant to move to strike the plaintiff's complaint at the outset of litigation unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., ' 425.16, subd. (e)).
The model SLAPP suit is one “'filed by a large land developer against environmental activists or a neighborhood association intended to chill the defendants' continued political or legal opposition to the developers' plans.'” Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1125, citing Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815, overruled on other grounds in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53. Section 425.16, however, has been applied to dismiss complaints in a wide range of other contexts. See, eg, Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (residential rental property owners' suit against nonprofit tenants' rights corporation); Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1551 (public figures' suit against newspaper); Dove Audio Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777 (record publisher's suit against law firm); Averill v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1175 (home buyer's suit against seller). Since enactment of the anti-SLAPP statute, the question has arisen: What are the effects of the anti-SLAPP statute on peer review boards and their members when a disgruntled physician seeks to recover for injuries he feels the board's activities have caused him?
A Test Case
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.