Public Documents

 
Public Documents - Legal Research

Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to bring a special motion to strike ("Anti-SLAPP") to causes of action aimed at chilling exercise of free speech. Here, Plaintiff's causes of action which combined conduct protected by Anti-SLAPP with unprotected conduct. Held: Trial court may grant Anti-SLAPP to a part of a cause of action.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 9.9.13 in Legal Research.
This was a legal memo I wrote for Judge Harbin-Forte concerning whether attorney fees are recoverable in California as a measure of tort damages under the doctrine of "the tort of another".
Posted by Alston Lew on 3.13.13 in Legal Research. (CA)
This was a legal memo I wrote for Judge Harbin-Forte concerning whether attorney fees are recoverable in California as a measure of tort damages under the doctrine of "the tort of another".
Posted by Alston Lew on 3.13.13 in Legal Research. (CA)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, has dismissed a discrimination action under Title IV and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought by a cheerleader against the varsity squad. The court saw the case as nothing more than a "disgruntled cheerleader mom" suing because her daugher did not make the cheerleading squad. Courtesy of http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/5th_circuit_tosses_cheerleading_suit_hits_law_firm_for_grammar_and_spelling/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
Posted by Robin Mashal on 8.5.11 in Legal Research.
Landlord was trying to sell the house. Tenant told prospective buyers a sex offender used to live across the street. When prospective buyers backed out of the deal, Landlord sued tenant for interfering with contractual relations. Tenant brought a special motion to strike under Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure ("Anti-SLAPP law"). Held: preventing child sexual abuse and protecting children from sexual predators are issues of "public interest" and hence tenant's disclosure is afforded anti-SLAPP protection.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 7.15.11 in Legal Research.
Under California law, a party cannot appeal a summary judgment ruling until the trial court has entered judgment. CCP § 437c(m)(1). California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a) sets time limits for appealing a judgment. In this case, defendant brought a summary judgment motion, and prevailed. Court clerk served a minute order entitled “Order Granting Summary Judgment.” However, the proposed judgment was never signed or entered. Held: order granting summary judment was not an entry of judgment because it did not contained an “express declaration of the ultimate rights of the parties”.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 6.15.11 in Legal Research.
This is a copy of the GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE, as published by the California Attorney General in August 2008. For further information, visit the the Attorney General's web site http://ag.ca.gov.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 12.21.10 in Legal Research.
We filed lawsuit in the LA Superior Court, Defendant brought a cross-complaint against a third party, and third party cross-defendant gave notice to remove to federal court. We opposed on the grounds that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) permits only “the defendant or the defendants” to remove to the federal district court, and Ninth Circuit has held that third-party defendants lack the right to remove. Ciolino v. Ryan, No. C 03-1396 TEH, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11639, at *9-10 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2003). Cross-defendant immediately stipulated to a remand.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 11.14.10 in Legal Research.
Section 1032 of the California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") authorizes the prevailing party in a lawsuit to recover his or her costs. CCP Section 1033.5 lists which items of costs are allowable. In order to recover costs, prevaling party needs to file a Memorandum of Costs. In turn, the other party may bring a motion to tax costs or a motion to strike costs. Below is a sample Motion to Tax Costs.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 11.6.10 in Legal Research.
This document aims to provide whether use of social media during working hours could be productive or unproductive. It also states about the need of social media policy in the legal industry today.
Posted by Sadanand Naik on 10.2.10 in Legal Research.