Legal Opinion

Bikkina v. Mahadevan

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 9, 2015No. A143031PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RUVOLO, P. J.

I

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Jagan Mahadevan (Mahadevan) appeals from the denial of his special motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) 1 filed in response to respondent Prem Bikkina’s (Bikkina) complaint alleging that Mahadevan made false and libelous statements about Bikkina’s research. The trial court denied the motion, finding Mahadevan’s statements did not arise from protected activity. We agree with the trial court and further conclude that, even if the conduct arose from protected activity, the claims have sufficient merit…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Fletcher v. Western National Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Agarwal v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Ward v. TaggartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Filmon.Com. Inc. v. Doubleverify Inc.California Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Rand Resources, LLC v. City of CarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Robles v. Agreserves, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2016
  4. Workman v. Colichman, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  5. Jenni Rivera Enters., LLC v. Latin World Entm't Holdings, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

19 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