Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Courts Continue to Decide California Anti-SLAPP Motions, Despite Criticism
Ninth Circuit federal appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski recently questioned whether federal courts should hear motions to strike under California's “ant-SLAPP” statute. California Civil Code '425.16 is aimed at protecting parties against lawsuits filed to suppress involvement in free speech activities. In Makaeff v. Trump University LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013), which allowed an anti-SLAPP motion to proceed, Judge Kozinski nevertheless wrote in a concurrence that the state statute “cuts an ugly gash through” the “integrated program of pre-trial, trial and post-trial procedures” set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The anti-SLAPP law may be used to strike state, but not federal, law claims. However, it is frequently used in California state and federal courts, both of which continue to interpret how the statute's provisions should be applied.
In Stutzman v. Armstrong, 2:13-CV-00116 (C.D. Calif. 2013), for example, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California considered an anti-SLAPP motion filed by cycling athlete Lance Armstrong, his publishers, agent-manager and cycle team owner in a class action that claims Armstrong's books contained misleading information. The suit, which was filed after the public revelations about Armstrong's involvement in a performance-enhancing drug controversy, charges that instead of “truthful and honest works of nonfiction biography,” Armstrong's books ' including the best-selling It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life and Every Second Counts ' are really fictional works. The consumer complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, and violations of California's consumer legal remedies, unfair competition and false advertising statutes.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?