paint-brush
Two-Step Analysis of the Anti-SLAPP Statute in California, Invoked in X’s Lawsuit Against Ccdhby@legalpdf

Two-Step Analysis of the Anti-SLAPP Statute in California, Invoked in X’s Lawsuit Against Ccdh

by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too...

March 29th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
Print this story
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

X (formerly Twitter) is suing the Center for Countering Digital Hate for accessing its data and publishing misleading reports. The case involves anti-SLAPP laws and Rule 12(b)(6) standards for dismissing claims.
featured image - Two-Step Analysis of the Anti-SLAPP Statute in California, Invoked in X’s Lawsuit Against Ccdh
1x
Read by Dr. One voice-avatar

Listen to this story

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

About @legalpdf
LEARN MORE ABOUT @LEGALPDF'S
EXPERTISE AND PLACE ON THE INTERNET.

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 6 of 19.

A. Anti-SLAPP

CCDH moves to strike the California causes of action pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. MTD&S at 8–9. A moving defendant must, at the first step, make a prima facie showing that the state law claims “arise from any act in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech” “in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1); Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254, 261 (9th Cir. 2013). If the defendant makes that showing, the court then considers whether the plaintiff has, at the second step, demonstrated “a reasonable probability” of prevailing on the merits of its claims. In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003)). This order will now address the first step: whether CCDH has made the required prima facie showing. This order will go on to address the second step on a claim-by-claim basis, applying a 12(b)(6) standard. See Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 890 F.3d at 834.



Continue Reading Here.


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!

About Author

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases@legalpdf
Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

Permanent on Arweave
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
 Terminal
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
 Lite
X REMOVE AD