Analyzing CCDH's Arguments: Anti-SLAPP, Claim Dismissal, and Doe Defendants in Musk's X Lawsuit by@legalpdf
Analyzing CCDH's Arguments: Anti-SLAPP, Claim Dismissal, and Doe Defendants in Musk's X Lawsuit
by Legal PDFMarch 29th, 2024
Too Long; Didn't Read
The discussion delves into CCDH's legal arguments, covering anti-SLAPP defenses, challenges to claim sufficiency, and the inclusion of Doe defendants, all crucial aspects of the ongoing legal battle between X Corp. and Center for Countering Digital Hate.
X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 5 of 19.
III. DISCUSSION
CCDH argues that California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies to the three California causes of action.[9] MTD&S at 8–9. It then argues that X Corp. fails to state a claim as to each cause of action, and so the Court should either strike (in the case of the three California causes of action) or dismiss (in the case of the CFAA cause of action) them. Id. at 9–26. Finally, CCDH argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim as to the Doe defendants. Id. at 26–27. This order addresses each argument in turn.
Continue Reading Here.
[9] “[T]he anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal law causes of action.” Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010).
About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.
L O A D I N G
. . . comments & more!
. . . comments & more!
