Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HORVITZ & LEVY

California’s anti-SLAPP statute broadly protects the right to petition the government. It has become one of the most litigated statutes anywhere. A complaint subject to an anti-SLAPP motion can be dismissed before discovery commences, and an order granting or denying the motion is immediately appealable. An appeal automatically stays further trial court proceedings, so plaintiffs must carefully draft complaints to avoid immediate dismissal or appellate delays, and defendants must evaluate every new complaint to assess whether it potentially implicates the right to petition protected by the statute.

We have shaped California anti-SLAPP law by handling more than 50 anti-SLAPP appeals, including winning three anti-SLAPP cases in the California Supreme Court. In addition to handling anti-SLAPP appeals, we also draft and oppose such motions in the superior court. We also frequently consult with trial counsel in preparing complaints that will evade the anti-SLAPP barrier, and with clients seeking to determine if the complaint they just received could be subject to dismissal by an anti-SLAPP motion.

On the national level, Horvitz & Levy has long been involved in efforts to pass a federal anti-SLAPP law. The written testimony of H&L partner Jeremy Rosen in support of H.R. 2304, the SPEAK FREE Act, is now available online as part of the House report on the hearing held to discuss the bill. 

Contact Jeremy B. Rosen or Felix Shafir for more information about our anti-SLAPP practice.

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal reverses denial of summary judgment for fitness center.

Read More

Angel v. Winograd

California Court of Appeal reverses denial of anti-SLAPP motion in defamation case.

Read More

Central Metal v. Center Bank

California Court of Appeal affirms grant of anti-SLAPP motion in action arising from commercial lender’s receivership action.

Read More

Sqrow v. A.G.M.G.H. Five, the Ranch Limited Partnership

California Court of Appeal permits low-income seniors to proceed with challenge to 144-percent rent increase.

Read More

Jay v. Mahaffey

California Court of Appeal affirms denial of anti-SLAPP motion in malicious prosecution case.

Read More

Malin v. Singer

California Court of Appeal reverses trial court and orders dismissal of extortion claim against attorney.

Read More

Ibarra v. Carpinello

California Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of defamation lawsuit in high-profile MMA dispute.

Read More

State Farm v. Lee

California Court of Appeal affirms order granting motion to strike cross-complaint for abuse of process.

Read More

Li v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

California Court of Appeal affirms order denying motion to strike malicious prosecution action against Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

Read More

Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC

California Court of Appeal confirms broad First Amendment protection for publishers.

Read More

PrediWave Corporation v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett et al.

California Court of Appeal reverses trial court order that dismissed $2 billion attorney malpractice suit under anti-SLAPP statute.

Read More

In Re Episcopal Church Cases

California Supreme Court rules in favor of national church in property dispute with breakaway local parish.

Read More

Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist.

California Supreme Court holds that hospital peer review process is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion.

Read More

Varian v. Delfino

California Supreme Court holds that appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays further trial court proceedings.

Read More

Malin v. Singer

Appellants' opening brief arguing that a pre-lawsuit demand letter on behalf of a client is protected by the First Amendment and the litigation privilege.

Read More

Henriks v. State Farm

Respondent's brief seeking affirmance of order granting anti-SLAPP motion in a lawsuit where plaintiff sought to hold insurer vicariously liable for allegedly improper actions taken by a private investigator hired by insurance defense counsel.

Read More

Lee v. Elghanayan

Respondent's brief seeking affirmance of our client's successful anti-SLAPP motion in a lawsuit challenging the cancellation of a sub-lease resulting from an out-of-state arbitration award.

Read More

Laiwala v. Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.

Respondent's brief seeking dismissal of plaintiff's appeal from a demurrer and anti-SLAPP ruling as untimely because plaintiff had filed his notice of appeal within 60 days of the judgment, but more than 60 days after the grant of anti-SLAPP motion.

Read More