A scandalous Netflix documentary called an unconventional sex-based therapy business an “orgasm cult,” all based on a sole source whose account has several flaws. But the Court of Appeal dismissed the defamation case on anti-SLAPP grounds. Tim and Jeff discuss whether any California defamation case against a media company could survive the one-two punch of anti-SLAPP and NY Times v. Sullivan. They also discuss California’s unique approach to standing—it’s not jurisdictional, it’s purely pragmatic.

• Anti-SLAPP meets documentary defamation: OneTaste Inc. v. Netflix illustrates how courts evaluate actual malice when the plaintiff is treated as at least quasi-public, and how journalistic discretion can sink a claim even where the plaintiff says it provided contrary evidence before publication. Tim flags the built-in squeeze: if public-figure status and the controversy are intertwined, the plaintiff may need discovery to prove merit, but cannot get discovery without first showing merit.
• Standing without injury, by design, not accident: Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems tees up a standing fight over technical FDCPA disclosure issues, think small-font compliance, with no alleged real-world harm. The takeaway is not subtle: in California, legislative authorization can do a lot of work, and no harm does not necessarily mean no case.
• When the statute creates the bounty, sanctions become the guardrail: The hosts debate whether CCP 128.5 and CCP 128.7 actually deter nuisance filings when the underlying enforcement scheme invites penalty-driven litigation. Is it appropriate—or wise—to use our courts as civil bounty enforcement, devoid of any harm requirement?
• Juror privacy is real, ask the team that wrote the $10,000 check: Don’t research prospective jurors on social media.
• Minute entry, real consequences: A timing skirmish over whether a minute entry can function as an appeal-triggering order ends, for now, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining review. Be conservative in calculating the time to appeal

Want to know why bad AI cites really bother the courts? Jeff and Tim discuss two recent fake-AI-cites cases imposing sanctions and State Bar referrals, and draw this conclusion: It’s not that AI is bad at law—in one of these cases, the court noted that none of the AI mistakes even went in the direction of helping the offending party. Rather, the problem is that AI is just bad at citing and quoting the law. And the courts are super-protective against our legal canon becoming polluted with hallucinations.

• Blame game backfires: In Shayan v. Shakib, appellant’s counsel blamed non-attorney staff for adding the bad AI cites to the brief. The mistakes didn’t really change the arguments, and the court ordered counsel to file a corrected version. But the outcome is going to be the same, plus $7500 sanctions and a State Bar referral.
• Gatekeeping function: Courts emphasize that even when fabricated citations don't advance a party's position, they still threaten "the integrity of courts and the legal profession" by risking that fake law becomes cited as real precedent.
• We discuss updates in the Boies Schiller/Scientology case, and whether these recent cases predict the result.
• Voluntary dismissal dilemma: Tim’s firm filed an amicus brief in the Maniago case, arguing that voluntary dismissals with prejudice should be treated as appealable final judgments, challenging the rule that clerk-entered dismissals are merely "ministerial acts."
• Heated bench: A Texas redistricting case features an unusually scathing dissent beginning with "The main winners from Judge Brown's opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom," raising questions about appropriate judicial temperament.

The California Supreme Court’s long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee ruling.

• Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpayer standing under CCP §526a to challenge state laws, but still issued 100+ pages addressing the merits through a "captive audience" framework.
• Captive audience concerns: Tim highlights potential "mission creep" with a “captive audience” rationale, potentially extending beyond elder care facilities to courthouses, government offices, and other venues where First Amendment protections could be weakened.
• “Bloodthirsty originalism”: From the Federalist Society conference, Judge Bumatay advocated less deference to stare decisis in favor of constitutional fidelity, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh addressed courage and civility in legal practice.
• Discovery fee windfall: In Baer v. Tedder, the court authorized recovery of $113,000 in appellate attorney fees for successfully defending a $10,000 discovery sanction, creating economics similar to anti-SLAPP appeals.
• AI arbitration arrives: The American Arbitration Association announced a pilot program offering AI resolution of construction disputes with human oversight, signaling that AI's impact on legal practice may be just "a couple of years away" rather than decades.
• Oral argument mastery: Federal Circuit judges advised narrowing issues to increase credibility, welcoming judicial interruptions as opportunities, and viewing argument time as the court's time for conversation rather than presentation.

Tune in for practical insights on appellate strategy, the evolving legal landscape, and how to prepare for significant changes in legal practice in the coming years.