On November 18, 2024, the California Court of Appeal – Second Appellate District, Division Two heard and affirmed a trial court decision in favor of a Colman Perkins Law Group Client-Defendant, an insurance carrier, based on the applicable Anti-SLAPP statute.

CPLG partner Sheryl Lee Reeves defended in the Court of Appeals, and Law and Motion attorney Dat-Vinh Nguyen prepared the defense appellate briefs. Both attorneys hail from our law office in Glendale, California.

The Anti-SLAPP statute

When deemed a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), the court determines that the lawsuit is a misuse of the court to silence the free speech of Defendants acting in good faith.

Anti-SLAPP laws provide a remedy, putting the burden on the Plaintiff to demonstrate that he or she has sufficient evidence to be likely to win the suit. If the Plaintiff cannot meet this burden, the suit will be dismissed.

The Plaintiff’s SLAPP: Baseless claims of discrimination

In this matter, the Plaintiff filed her lawsuit premised on the allegation that our client filed a “REG 481 notice” to the DMV regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle damages, which she asserted was somehow “false,” “fraudulent,” and “racially discriminatory.” 

Our contentions at trial

In response, our client asserted that:

• There was no malice, prejudice, or falsehood in submitting the REG 481 form 
• As an insurance carrier, it was obligated by law to file the REG 481 notice at issue 
• This act was a protected activity under the applicable Anti-SLAPP statute 

All attempts by our client to seek informal resolution by way of settlement of the Plaintiff’s claims, including her property damage claims, were refused. 

Thereafter, our Client-Defendant filed an Anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in its entirety.

The decision

The trial court granted our client’s Motion and dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, whereupon the Plaintiff commenced a barrage of appeals with the California Court of Appeal – Second Appellate District. (These included appeals of decisions secondary to and derivative of the Court’s granting of the Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion.) 

To date, every single one of the Plaintiff-Appellant’s appeals has been ruled upon, denied, and dismissed by the Court of Appeal. This culminated in the Court of Appeal’s November 18, 2024 holding affirming the trial Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in favor of our client based on the Anti-SLAPP statute. 

Thus, our client is cleared of all liability.  

Learn More

CPLG Verdicts
About partner Sheryl Lee Reeves
About attorney Dat Vinh Nguyen