Doe

Doe v. Luster

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 4th 139·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1869·2006 Daily Journal DAR 15519·51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 403·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10866
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 28, 2006No. B186408California4,302 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Perluss, J.

*142 Opinion

Although an order granting or denying a special motion to strike filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, 1 the antiSLAPP statute (strategic lawsuit against public participation), is, in most instances, immediately appealable (§§ 425.16, subd. (i), 904.1, subd. (a)(13); but see §§ 425.17, subd. (e), 425.18, subd. (c)), an order declining to award attorney fees to a plaintiff who successfully opposes an anti-SLAPP motion is not. Accordingly, we dismiss Lynn Doe’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of her motion for attorney fees pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (c).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Doe filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (CBS), and Elizabeth Luster, alleging causes of action for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. CBS and Luster each filed a special motion to strike Doe’s complaint under section 425.16. The trial court denied both motions on May 3, 2005, concluding, as to Luster, that she had failed to satisfy her burden of making a threshold showing the challenged causes of action arose from constitutionally protected activity. (See…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.