This 3d District decision today here is what most of us would instinctively call a SLAPP case (i.e., an appeal from an anti-SLAPP motion ruling). But footnote 2 explains why using "SLAPP" is 'wrong' and we should instead say 'special motion to strike':
- We eschew use of an acronym often used to label this motion. (E.g., Yeager v. Holt (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 450, 452.) The acronym grew out of the statute’s initial focus. However, with the blessing of the Legislature and the courts, this statute has been applied in contexts across the litigation spectrum, and the acronym is no longer accurate. The proceeding should simply be called what it is--a special motion to strike.
Then footnote 8 expresses displeasure at the failure to cite cases without "pinpoint" (or "jump cite") citations to particular pages:
- Defendant also cites two decisions of the high court—without point cites, a nettlesome practice that foists upon this court the task of finding the part of the opinion that supports its argument—that due process somehow imposes an obligation under section 425.16 to review pleadings for vagueness.
Posts
