A favored tool of the defense bar, California’s anti-SLAPP statute empowers a trial court to dismiss claims brought by a plaintiff whose lawsuit is aimed at intimidating a person or business into silence by essentially burdening them with litigation costs. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16. Anti-SLAPP motions weed out, at an early stage, meritless claims arising from a defendant’s free speech, or otherwise activity protected by law. Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384.

In an interesting twist involving an employment law dispute, a recent case, Balubhai Patel, et al. v. Manuel Chavez, addressed the applicability of anti-SLAPP to federal law claims, specifically §1983 of title 42 of the United States Code. (May 6, 2020) 2020 DJDAR 4279. In that case, Balubhai Patel and his company, DTWO & E (collectively “Patel”) owned a residential hotel in Los Angeles where Chavez worked as an on-site property manager. Chavez filed a complaint against Patel with the California Labor Commissioner for unpaid wages and various wage-and-hour violations. After a Berman hearing on the merits where Chavez testified in support of his claims, the Labor Commissioner ruled in Chavez’s favor for $235,000 in unpaid wages, penalties, and interest.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]