How long does it take to file an anti SLAPP motion?

After being served with a Complaint, a defendant will have 30 calendar days in which to file a responsive pleading. Typically a responsive pleading comes in the form of an answer, motion to strike, demurrer, or other such document. Defendant will then have 60 days from the date he is served in which to file an anti-SLAPP motion.

Can a defendant appeal an anti SLAPP decision?

By appealing, a defendant who has been subjected to a SLAPP suit may continue to avoid litigating the case until the court of appeal affirms the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. Unfortunately, like many laws with noble intentions, the anti-SLAPP statute can be abused.

What are the features of the anti SLAPP statute?

The anti-SLAPP statute contains several features that favor the defendant. First, discovery is automatically stayed upon the filing of the anti-SLAPP motion. [9] The stay protects a defendant who would otherwise be forced to engage in potentially expensive and time-consuming discovery.

How to draft a pleading for anti SLAPP?

Draft the pleading to make it clear that the claims do not arise from protected activity.

After being served with a Complaint, a defendant will have 30 calendar days in which to file a responsive pleading. Typically a responsive pleading comes in the form of an answer, motion to strike, demurrer, or other such document. Defendant will then have 60 days from the date he is served in which to file an anti-SLAPP motion.

By appealing, a defendant who has been subjected to a SLAPP suit may continue to avoid litigating the case until the court of appeal affirms the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. Unfortunately, like many laws with noble intentions, the anti-SLAPP statute can be abused.

What are the stages of anti SLAPP litigation?

Here is a brief outline of the typical stages of anti-SLAPP litigation: After being served with a Complaint, a defendant will have 30 calendar days in which to file a responsive pleading. Typically a responsive pleading comes in the form of an answer, motion to strike, demurrer, or other such document.

When was California’s anti SLAPP law section 425.16 amended?

The statute was amended to overrule the decision by the California Supreme Court in Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, which held that the trial court’s erroneous denial of an anti-SLAPP motion constitutes probable cause for filing and maintaining a SLAPP, as well as the decisions in Decker v.