|
p0712 REVIEW DENIED Although an amendment to the anti-SLAPP statute exempting from its coverage actions brought in the public interest could be applied in the appeal of an action that arose before it went into effect, it did not apply to an action against a satellite TV company based on the claim that letters it sent to buyers of devices that would permit theft of its service were extortionate since, even if successful, the action would not enforce an important right affecting the public interest.
BLANCHARD v DIRECTV (Satellite Piracy) 123 CA4 903 [See: CCP 425.16, 425.17 CivC 47(b); Brenton v Metabolife 116 CA4 679, P/AT 5/04; Physicians v Tyson 119 CA4 120, P/AT 7/04; Aronson v Kinsella 58 CA4 254, T/AT 11/97]
|
|