Barker v. Fox & Associates
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHMAN, J.
Alexander Barker sued three defendants for defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Barker had met his burden under step two of the anti-SLAPP analysis. We review the issue de novo, and conclude otherwise, that Barker has not met his burden to show that his complaint is legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing to support a favorable judgment. We thus reverse.
BACKGROUND
The Factual Setting
An understanding of the…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Hughes v. PairCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Davidson v. City of WestminsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Agarwal v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Armin v. Riverside Community HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- (PC) Kusalich v. PerezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (PS) James v. Metzger Mgt. Co.District Court, E.D. California · 2025
- Armin v. Riverside Community HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Gold v. California Highway PatrolDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.