Horvitz & Levy LLP - First Amendment/Anti-SLAPP Practice

	Practice Areas Index
	California Supreme Court Cases
	U.S. Supreme Court Cases
	Why Hire An Appellate Expert?
	Por qué Emplear un Especialista en Apelaciones

	Search our site

	DISCLAIMER

First Amendment and Anti-SLAPP Statute

Horvitz & Levy LLP has a growing First Amendment and anti-SLAPP statute practice. In recent years, several of the firm’s cases have reached the California Supreme Court, and we have participated in amicus curiae briefing on First Amendment issues in the United States Supreme Court.

First Amendment Litigation

Horvitz & Levy LLP has repeatedly been successful in obtaining reversals of substantial defamation judgments against our clients. Notable among the firm’s recent victories are (1) Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, in which the California Supreme Court reversed a $775,000 defamation judgment arising from thousands of postings made by the firm’s clients on various Internet message boards; (2) Taylor v. Kuwatch (June 30, 2004, B161313)[nonpub. opn.], in which the Court of Appeal reversed a $1 million defamation judgment in favor of Lawrence Taylor against former California Attorney General candidate Edward Kuwatch for statements made on Kuwatch’s website about Taylor; (3) Roland Land Investment Co. v. Velur Investments II, Inc. (Jan. 17, 2002, B131086)[nonpub. opn.], in which the Court of Appeal reversed a $1 million defamation judgment arising from statements made about a business competitor; and (4) McNair v. Worldwide Church of God (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 363, in which the Court of Appeal reversed a $1.26 million defamation judgment arising from statements made by our clients in connection with their church.

The firm also appeared as amicus curiae in the United States Supreme Court in Tory v. Cochran (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2108, in which the Court agreed with our argument that the injunctive remedy entered by the trial court after a defamation finding was overbroad and therefore unconstitutional.

Finally, the firm has successfully assisted clients in employing the First Amendment as a defense to a wide range of torts. For example, in U.D. Registry, Inc. v. State of California (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 107, the Court of Appeal adopted our argument that a California law that barred consumer credit reports from containing information about certain unlawful detainer actions was unconstitutional; and in Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, the Court of Appeal adopted our argument that a pretrial gag order was an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Anti-SLAPP Litigation

Horvitz & Levy LLP also has substantial expertise in utilizing the procedural protections afforded by California’s anti-SLAPP statute to protect freedom of speech. The firm not only handles appeals involving the anti-SLAPP statute, but also frequently prepares and argues anti-SLAPP motions in the trial courts.

In Varian v. Delfino, supra, 35 Cal.4th 180, for example, the firm successfully persuaded the Supreme Court to hold that a notice of appeal filed after the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion results in an automatic stay of all further trial court proceedings until the anti-SLAPP appeal has been resolved. The Miami Herald has pointed out that as a result of the Varian opinion, “California law was strengthened even further . . . because the anti-SLAPP law is ‘intended to prevent and deter meritless lawsuits that seek to deplete the defendant’s energy and drain his or her resources.’”

Horvitz & Levy LLP was also counsel for defendants in Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District (2006) 39 Cal.4th 192, in which the Supreme Court held that the anti-SLAPP statute applies in a lawsuit brought by a hospital staff physician arising out of a disciplinary recommendation by the hospital's peer review committee, because peer review proceedings constitute "any other official proceeding authorized by law" within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute.