Appellant sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), assessing it for unemployment insurance contributions for television writers employed by appellant.

Appellant was an independent producer of television films that hired free-lance writers to produce screenplays. The parties signed contracts granting appellant wide discretion in controlling and accepting the writers' work. The writers worked on their own time, at their own expense, and with their own tools. Respondent, the state's unemployment insurance appeals board, characterized the writers as independent contractors and held that the appellant was not responsible for paying unemployment insurance based on their salaries. The trial court reversed, finding the writers to be employees. Visit the best employment law attorney Los Angeles who specialize in employment law.

On appeal, the state's highest court agreed that the writers were employees. While the right of control was a primary consideration in assessing whether the writers were employees or independent contractors, other factors, such as being paid by the job rather than by the hour, were weighed by the court. The court affirmed.

The court affirmed, holding that appellant was required to make unemployment insurance contributions on behalf of screenwriters it hired under contract because the appellant's right of control over the final work product rendered them appellant's employees rather than independent contractors.

 Petitioner shorthand reporter filed a writ of mandate petition and challenged the ruling of respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied petitioner's motion to strike a cross-complaint for damages and injunctive relief against petitioner. Petitioner argued that the cross-complaint should have been stricken under the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (1993).

In an action for unfair business practices, real parties in interest filed a cross-complaint against petitioner shorthand reporter alleging restraint of trade and defamation and sought damages and injunctive relief. Petitioner filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint pursuant to the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (1993), which the trial court denied. 

On review, the court found that SLAPP suits were brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances in connection with a public issue. The court found that the petitioner made a prima facie showing that the cross-complaint arose from an act in furtherance of the petitioner's right of petition or free speech under the federal or state constitutions in connection with a public issue. The burden was then on real parties in interest to establish a probability of prevailing on the claim. The court issued a peremptory writ that directed the respondent trial court to vacate its order denying the petitioner's motion to strike and to enter a new order striking the cross-complaint in its entirety.

A peremptory writ was issued directing the responding trial court to vacate its order that denied petitioner shorthand reporter's motion to strike and to enter a new order striking the cross-complaint in its entirety because the real parties in interest failed in their burden to establish a probability of prevailing on the claim. The court held that the responding parties had to show that, given the evidence, they had a substantial case.