Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Zia Sun(zsun) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Francois Goelo who wrote (3113)	7/2/1999 5:13:00 PM
From: jjs64	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10354

Circuit OKs SLAPP Law, Revives Lockheed Case Paul Elias The Recorder/Cal Law March 25, 1999 California's unique "anti-SLAPP" state law, which provides severe sanctions for meritless suits filed to chill free speech and the protests of an opponent, gained a foothold in federal court with a favorable Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on Wednesday. In a case of first impression, the court held that the state's law against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which grants attorneys fees to the prevailing party, can be folded into federal diversity actions that include claims made under California law. To hold otherwise, the court concluded, would encourage forum-shopping. "Plainly, if the anti-SLAPP provisions are held not to apply in federal court, a litigant interested in bringing meritless SLAPP claims would have a significant incentive to shop for a federal forum," wrote Seattle District Court Judge Robert Bryan, who was sitting by designation on a panel including Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima and Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher. "Conversely, a litigant otherwise entitled to the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute would find considerable disadvantage in a federal proceeding." "Of a greater importance to me is that the case has been reinstated," said plaintiffs lawyer Guy Saperstein. Saperstein said he and his former firm have invested about $3 million in expenses pursuing the case. Saperstein originally brought the qui tam action in 1988 in federal court on behalf of two former Lockheed employees who accused the defense contractor of submitting false billing claims to the government. The company countersued under state law, alleging the employees had breached their fiduciary duty to the company. Saperstein then invoked the anti-SLAPP statute, alleging that the cross-complaint was filed purely to bully the plaintiffs into submission. In 1997, San Jose U.S. District Judge James Ware denied the plaintiffs' anti-SLAPP claim and granted Lockheed's motion to dismiss the employees' case. Ware found that the anti-SLAPP statute conflicted with federal motions to strike and motions to dismiss. But the Ninth Circuit disagreed with Ware's reasoning and found that the state law "can exist side by side" with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case is U.S. ex. rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 99 C.D.O.S. 2132. The court also partially reversed Ware's decision to dismiss the claims of the whistle-blowers, which alleged misconduct between 1984 and 1988. Though Congress amended the qui tam law in 1986 greatly in favor of the whistle-blowers, Ware ruled that the Lockheed case must be considered under the law before the amendment. But on Wednesday, the appellate panel reinstated those claims based on conduct that allegedly took place after the law was revised. Saperstein said that about "75 percent" of his case is based on allegations that allegedly occurred after 1986. Copyright 1999 NLP IP Company -- American Lawyer Media. All rights reserved.