Anti-SLAPP case 422
April 4th, 2012 
admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Grewal v Jammu 191 Cal.App.4th 977 (½) (2011) Yet another anti-SLAPP case, but this time affirming denial of the motion. G, a Sikh court interpreter, brought libel action against J for publicly and frequently alleging G, inter alia, was a Muslim terrorist. J brought 206-page anti-SLAPP motion which G countered with substantial evidence showing the published statements are provably false.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com J replied, only saying that G has only put the matters at issue, rather than proving they are false. [1] “However efficacious the anti-SLAPP procedure may be in the right case, it can be badly abused in the wrong one, resulting in substantial cost–and prejudicial delay.” At substantial length court points out over use and abuse of anti-SLAPP motions and asks for Legislature to fix this. [Legislature, I hope you’re listening.] [2] G met his anti-SLAPP burden “as [J] essentially conceded.” [3] Various criticism of quality of appeal (“Our reaction? Disbelief.” “J’s “briefs miss the point.” Statement of facts: 21 pages on losing side’s evidence, 20 lines on prevailing part’s. “Such advocacy is not to be condoned.” “The brief is, in a word, unhelpful.” “appeal that is utterly lacking in merit.”) [4] G not a public figure and no public interest involved, even were that a material issue. San Diego personal injury attorney