Valuerock TN Props., LLC v. PK Larwin Square SC LP, No. 6056634 (D4d3 Jun 28, 2019)
This one is pretty easy.
There’s a contract—a commercial lease. Tenant wants to assign it. Landlord refuses to agree. There’s some back and forth on the matter. Sooner or later Tenant sues for unreasonable denial of consent to the assignment. After the complaint is filed, tenant makes a revised proposal, which is again denied, and which subsequently forms the basis of an amended complaint.
So the question is: Does the case “arise from” a “settlement communication” consisting of the back and forth commercial dealing on the requested assignment, which could make it based on “protected activity” under the anti-SLAPP statute?
No, it doesn’t. The case arises from the decision not to agree to the assignment proposal. While that decision might have been communicated in arguable settlement correspondence, the denial itself is a non-communicative commercial decision, such that it would be protected activity.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment