SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (5393)11/29/2003 11:52:43 AM
From: dantecristo  Read Replies (1) of 12465
 
Jeff - When we first pointed out to the trial court judge that a stay was automatic pending the appeal of the denial of our Motion to Strike based on California's anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16), only statuatory law required the stay of proceedings. As our case moved towards trial, other common laws such as Mattel v. Luce casp.net came into play. We constantly reminded the court that they were not following the law in forcing us to go to trial pending our appeal and were ignored. If our case becomes law on December 12, 2003 Varian will have decimated California's anti-SLAPP statute in that judges will be able to use Varian v. Delfino to ignore the stay and force defendants to pay for a trial which should not occur. Unless the Supremes choose to resolve the appellate conflict California's 35 million people will effectively have no anti-SLAPP protection. Our next book is entitled "Chaos".
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News