plaintiff must establish claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

plaintiff must establish claim in California

9 California opinions name it 2 courts 2022–2026 9 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.green
cal · 2017 · cited in 8 California opinions naming this issue, 2024–2026
2 sentences

2026Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 , 1009.) First, “the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims ‘aris[e] from’ protected activity in which the defendant 8 has engaged.” (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 , quoting § 425.16, subd. (b)(1); see § 425.16, subd. (e) [defining protected activity].) Second, if the defendant satisfies the first step, the plaintiff must show “there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The plaintiff must esta

2026Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 , 1009.) First, “the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims ‘aris[e] from’ protected activity in which the defendant 8 has engaged.” (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 , quoting § 425.16, subd. (b)(1); see § 425.16, subd. (e) [defining protected activity].) Second, if the defendant satisfies the first step, the plaintiff must show “there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The plaintiff must esta

88
Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carsongreen
cal · 2019 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025STEP ONE: PROTECTED ACTIVITY A. Brill and Levene’s E-mails and Telephone Calls Were Protected Activity At step one, “the critical consideration is whether the cause of action is based on the defendant’s protected free speech or petitioning activity.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 .) To carry its burden at step one, the moving defendant must establish “that the ‘conduct by which plaintiff claims to have been injured falls within one of the four categories described in subdivision (e) [of section 425.16]’ [citation], and that the plaintiff’s claims in fact arise from that conduc

2025Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 , 1009.) First, “the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims ‘aris[e] from’ protected activity in which the defendant has engaged.” (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 (Park).) Second, if the defendant satisfies the first step, 5 the plaintiff must show “there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The plaintiff must establish the claim has “at least ‘minimal merit.’” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 106

14
Filmon.Com. Inc. v. Doubleverify Inc.green
cal · 2019 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025Section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4) protects “any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” The catchall provision “calls for a two-part analysis.” (FilmOn, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 149.) First, we examine the “content of the speech” to decide what “‘issue of public interest’ the speech in question implicates.” (Ibid.) In determining what is an “issue of public interest,” courts have considered various factors, including “whether the subject of t

2025Section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4) protects “any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” The catchall provision “calls for a two-part analysis.” (FilmOn, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 149.) First, we examine the “content of the speech” to decide what “‘issue of public interest’ the speech in question implicates.” (Ibid.) In determining what is an “issue of public interest,” courts have considered various factors, including “whether the subject of t

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Navellier v. Sletten green
cal · 2002
2 sentences

2025STEP ONE: PROTECTED ACTIVITY A. Brill and Levene’s E-mails and Telephone Calls Were Protected Activity At step one, “the critical consideration is whether the cause of action is based on the defendant’s protected free speech or petitioning activity.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 .) To carry its burden at step one, the moving defendant must establish “that the ‘conduct by which plaintiff claims to have been injured falls within one of the four categories described in subdivision (e) [of section 425.16]’ [citation], and that the plaintiff’s claims in fact arise from that conduc

2025Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 , 1009.) First, “the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims ‘aris[e] from’ protected activity in which the defendant has engaged.” (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 (Park).) Second, if the defendant satisfies the first step, 5 the plaintiff must show “there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The plaintiff must establish the claim has “at least ‘minimal merit.’” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 106

42025–2025
Castleman v. Sagaser CA5 green
calctapp · 2013
2 sentences

2025FIRST STEP: THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES FROM PROTECTED ACTIVITY A claim is only subject to an anti-SLAPP motion if it “aris[es] from” protected activity. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Section 425.16, subdivision (e), defines protected activity to include any statement made in a judicial proceeding or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body. (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(1)–(2).) “We review the parties’ pleadings, declarations, and other supporting documents at this stage of the analysis only ‘to determine what conduct is actually being challenged, n

2025FIRST STEP: THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES FROM PROTECTED ACTIVITY A claim is only subject to an anti-SLAPP motion if it “aris[es] from” protected activity. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Section 425.16, subdivision (e), defines protected activity to include any statement made in a judicial proceeding or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body. (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(1)–(2).) “We review the parties’ pleadings, declarations, and other supporting documents at this stage of the analysis only ‘to determine what conduct is actually being challenged, n

22025–2025
Baral v. Schnitt green
cal · 2016
1 sentence

2022(Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 .) But only a claim “ ‘that satisfies both 8 SEROVA v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute . . . is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.’ ” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820 .) Given this and “this court’s ‘inherent, primary authority over the practice of law,’ ” we may conclude a contested portion of an anti-SLAPP motion should be denied solely based on a plaintiff’s showing of merit, as a sufficiently meritorious claim cannot be struck regardless

12022–2022
Oasis West Realty v. Goldman green
cal · 2011
1 sentence

2022(Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384 .) But only a claim “ ‘that satisfies both 8 SEROVA v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute . . . is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.’ ” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820 .) Given this and “this court’s ‘inherent, primary authority over the practice of law,’ ” we may conclude a contested portion of an anti-SLAPP motion should be denied solely based on a plaintiff’s showing of merit, as a sufficiently meritorious claim cannot be struck regardless

12022–2022

Where else courts name it

NY 63 (1929–2026) LA 51 (1964–2025) RI 11 (1980–2023) IL 10 (1979–2025) CA 9 (2022–2026) TX 5 (2000–2022) DE 3 (1914–2025) MT 2 (2014–2025) NJ 2 (1998–2015) WI 2 (2005–2025) WV 2 (2013–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check