No. 20-965
Balubhai Patel, et al. v. Manuel Chavez
Tags: 42-usc-1983 anti-SLAPP anti-SLAPP-statute attorney-fees civil-rights civil-rights-statute federal-preemption fee-shifting preemption supremacy-clause
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
SocialSecurity Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2021-03-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether California's anti-SLAPP statute's mandatory attorney fee shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing defendant conflicts with, and stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is therefore preempted under the Supremacy Clause?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether California's anti-SLAPP statute's mandatory attorney fee shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing defendant conflicts with, and stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is therefore preempted under the Supremacy Clause?
Docket Entries
2021-03-29
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
2021-01-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2021)
Attorneys
Balubhai Patel, et al.
Frank Alan Weiser — Attorney at Law, Petitioner