Sukumar v. Ballard
Ponani Sukumar (Ponani) appeals from an order granting the special motion of James R. Ballard and Schwartz Semerdjian Ballard & Cauley LLP (collectively Ballard) to strike his defamation complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,[1] commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 57, fn 1.) Ponani contends the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to his complaints because the alleged defamatory statements were commercial speech. He also contends the trial court erred by determining his claims were time-barred, by weighing evidence to find the alleged defamatory statements were true, and by sustaining Ballard's objections to the declaration of his linguistics expert.
We conclude the anti-SLAPP statute applies and Ponani's claims are time-barred. We, therefore, affirm the order.
Comments on Sukumar v. Ballard