Skip to main content
Mark Allen Goldowitz

Mark Goldowitz’s Legal Cases

7 total

  • Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Jan 21, 1999
    Outcome:
    California Supreme Court affirmed trial court's decision to grant our client's anti-SLAPP motion and strike the complaint. The trial court awarded more than $425,000 for attorneys fees and costs.
    Description:
    The Briggses, landlords, sued our client, a nonprofit organization that provides counseling, mediation, and referral services related to landlord-tenant disputes, alleging that the organization harassed and defamed them. The trial court granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court reversed in a 2-1 decision, finding no “issue of public significance” in the defendant’s conduct. In its first case involving the California anti-SLAPP law, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute is to be construed broadly and covers any lawsuit arising from the exercise of the right to petition the government, regardless of the issue involved. In total, the trial court awarded more than $425,000 for attorneys fees and costs.
  • Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Outcome:
    Entire lawsuit was dismissed as to our client, after a trip to the California Supreme Court, and more than $434,000 was awarded for attorneys fees and costs.
    Description:
    Three plaintiffs, vocal critics of alternative medicine, sued our client, breast-implant awareness activist Ilena Rosenthal, for defamation and related claims, based on critical comments she made about two of them on the Internet. The trial court granted her anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed this ruling as to two plaintiffs, but reversed as to the third. The California Supreme Court held that the third plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as well, ruling that Rosenthal was protected from civil liability for republication of the words of another on the Internet by section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. On remand, the trial court awarded more than $434,000 for attorneys fees.
  • Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Feb 01, 1996
    Outcome:
    The lawsuit against our client was dismissed, pursuant to his anti-SLAPP motion. More than $428,000 in fees were awarded.
    Description:
    The Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit seeking to vacate a multimillion dollar judgment against it, in favor of our client, Lawrence Wollersheim. This was part of extensive and drawn-out litigation (lasting 15 years) between Scientology and Wollersheim. The trial court granted Wollersheim’s anti-SLAPP motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action arising from any act in furtherance of the right of petition, such as Wollersheim’s original successful lawsuit, regardless of the subject matter. More than $428,000 in fees were awarded.
  • Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Nov 09, 2010
    Outcome:
    Six of seven claims were dismissed under the anti-SLAPP law and more than $80,000 in attorneys fees were awarded.
    Description:
    The trial court denied an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a dentist's claims of libel per se and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, filed against two parents and Yelp!, arising from a negative review on Yelp! regarding the dentist's treatment of the parents' child. The Court of Appeal held that six of the seven claims should have been dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law. On remand, more than $80,000 in attorneys fees were awarded
  • Coltrain v. Shewalter (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 94

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Aug 19, 1998
    Outcome:
    Complaint was dismissed by plaintiffs after our clients filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The court held that we were entitled to recover our attorneys fees.
    Description:
    Our clients, the neighbors of an apartment complex, filed nuisance actions in small claims court against the owners of the complex, after unsuccessful attempts to abate alleged criminal activity and harassment by residents of the complex. In retaliation, the owners of the complex sued our clients for trade libel, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. After our clients filed an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs dismissed their complaint. The Court of Appeal found that our clients were targets of a SLAPP and were entitled to recover our attorneys fees, even though the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint.
  • Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635

    Practice Area:
    Constitutional
    Date:
    Feb 04, 2005
    Outcome:
    Landord's lawsuit against our client was dismissed pursuant our client's anti-SLAPP motion.
    Description:
    Our client, John Quintero, was part of organized public protests against Richard Thomas, his landlord. After Quintero and others appeared at Thomas’s church, Thomas filed a petition against Quintero seeking injunctive relief against civil harassment (per Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6). Quintero filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court denied. The appellate court reversed, holding that the section 527.6 petition to enjoin civil harassment was subject to an anti-SLAPP motion and the plaintiff had not shown that the lawsuit had any merit.
  • Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Apr 28, 1999
    Outcome:
    After our client filed an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit and the court awarded our atttorneys fees and costs.
    Description:
    Plaintiff school superintendent dismissed his complaint with prejudice against our client, Shelly Carmon, after we filed an anti-SLAPP motion but before the court had ruled on the motion. The trial court issued an order granting the motion to strike and awarding attorneys fees and costs. The Court of appeal held that the trial court’s adjudication of the merits of the motion supported affirmance of the award of attorney’s fees and costs.