this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
66 points (98.5% liked)

Legal News

424 readers
32 users here now

International and local legal news.


Basic rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flagSome cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules applyAll lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] adhocfungus@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe I missed it, but were there any consequences for filing the SLAPP? The suit was tossed, which is a good start, but then what? The article made it sound like California has anti-SLAPP laws, but were they applied here?

[โ€“] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah. They said it's now righted the wrong, but I don't think so.

Usually, the anti-SLAPP statute specifies that the SLAPPing party needs to pay the defendant's legal fees, but in this case they were represented pro bono by a high-profile attorney, so maybe that's the only remedy and it just didn't apply.