The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Code § 425.17(b). This has come to be known as the statute’s “public-interest exception.” . . . Code § 425.17(b). . . . Code § 425.17(e) (providing no immediate appeal “[i]f any trial court denies a special motion to strike . . . Proc, Code § 425.17(e) (providing. . . .
. . . Code § 425.17(a). One such exemption is for “commercial speech.” Id. § 425.17(c). . . . Code § 425.17(c). . . . Id. § 425.17(c)(1). . . . Id. § 425.17(c)(2). . . . Code § 425.17(c)(1). . . .
. . . Code § 425.17). . . . Code § 425.17(c)). . . . Code § 425.17(c)(2)). . . . Code. § 425.17(c)(2). . . . Code § 425.17(c)(1). . . . .
. . . . § 425.17. . . . . § 425.17(d)(2). .. . . .
. . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.17(d)(1). Thus, Dr. . . .
. . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.17(c)(1). . . .
. . . The district court did not deny Klein’s motion pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code § 425.17, . . . Proc.Code § 425.17(e) (providing that an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under this section . . .
. . . . § 425.17(d). . . .
. . . Commercial Speech Exception California Civil Procedure Code § 425.17 lays out several exemptions from . . . Among them is § 425.17(c), the “commercial speech exemption.” TYR Sport Inc. v. . . .
. . . As the California legislature recognized when it enacted § 425.17 to respond to and limit what it saw . . . Indeed, the California legislature declared in the plain language of § 425.17 that “there has been a . . . It enacted § 425.17 to limit the application of § 425.16 and rein in parties exploiting § 425.16 to seek . . .
. . . However, section 425.17(b) provides an exception to the application of the anti-SLAPP statute. . . . Code Civil Proc. § 425.17(b). . . . Section 425.17(b) provides that the anti-SLAPP law does not apply: to any action brought solely in the . . . The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that all requirements of 425.17(b) are satisfied here . . .
. . . . § 425.17(c) (emphasis added). . . . The court finds that the § 425.17 exception does not apply. . . . P. § 425.17(c)(1). . . . P.Code § 425.17(c)(1). . . . P.Code § 425.17(c)(2). . . .
. . . .”); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.17(c). . . .
. . . .”); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.17(c). . . .
. . . were abusing the anti-SLAPP statute, the California legislature enacted Civil Procedure Code Section 425.17 . . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.17(c) (emphasis supplied). . . . Id. § 425.17(d)(3). . . . Evans, 160 Cal.App.4th 482, 491, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 847 (2008) (referring to Section 425.17) (emphasis supplied . . . TYR argues that, because Section 425.17 was intended to apply to business disputes, neither Schubert . . .
. . . argue that an exception to the Anti-SLAPP provisions set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 . . . Section 425.17(c) provides in pertinent part: Section 425.16 [the Anti-SLAPP provisions] do[] not apply . . . Proc. § 425.17(c)(1). . . .
. . . . § 425.17(c). This exception was “intended to apply to commercial disputes.” Brill Media Co. v. . . . settlement of a lawsuit” are not statements of fact and do not fall within the exception created by § 425.17 . . . Plaintiffs argument that Defendants’ counterclaims attack protected speech activity is inappo-site; § 425.17 . . . Accordingly, the Court concludes that § 425.17 prevents a special motion to strike in this case. . . .
. . . Section 425.17 exempts from Anti-SLAPP coverage certain public interest lawsuits: Section 425.16 does . . . The section 425.17 exemption does not apply. . . . Plaintiffs also argue that a second exemption, set forth in § 425.17(c) applies in this case. . . . Section 425.17(c) provides: Section 425.16 [the Anti-SLAPP provisions] do[] not apply to any cause of . . . Proc. § 425.17(c). . . .
. . . (“Section 425.17”). . . . Code § 425.17(c). . . . Code § 425.17(c)(1). . . . Code § 425.17(c)(2). Both criteria must be met to establish the exception. . . . Accordingly, the exception codified in Section 425.17 has no application here. . . .
. . . But see § 425.17(c) (stating that § 425.16 does not apply to certain causes of action against businesses . . .
. . . Code § 425.17 Plaintiff next argues that under recently enacted section 425.17, this case is excluded . . . P. § 425.17(a). . . . Code § 425.17(c)(l)(2) (emphasis added). . . . section 425.17(c)(2). 1. . . . Id. § 425.17(c). . . .
. . . Section 425.17(f) of the CCO states: (f) Any person submitting a proposal to enter into an agreement . . . meaningful way, full-scale minority participation in the proposed cable communications system (see Section 425.17 . . . well, with “ownership” since the preface to the RFP in which it appears makes a direct reference to § 425.17 . . . Specifically, § 425.17(f) of the CCO, which was enacted prior to the publication of the RFP, and §§ 6.8 . . . or “contradictory” phrase in the preface was followed immediately in parentheses by a citation to § 425.17 . . .