Legal Opinion

Plumley v. Mockett

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 14, 2008No. B196598PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SUZUKAWA, J.

Respondent Roger Plumley (Plumley) sued appellants Douglas Alfred James Mockett (Mockett) and Sanford Astor (Astor) for malicious prosecution. Mockett and Astor (collectively, defendants) brought special motions to strike Plumley’s complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly referred to as the “anti-SLAPP statute” (strategic lawsuit against public participation). The trial court denied the motions to strike. Mockett and Astor appeal from the order. They contend (1) Plumley failed to establish that Mockett’s federal patent case, on which the malicious…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Lucido v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. People v. SandovalCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Paiva v. NicholsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Cheong Yu Yee v. Don CheungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. ANTOUNIAN v. Louis Vuitton MalletierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Mendoza v. WichmannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API