Callanan v. Grizzly Designs, LLC, No. C094008 (De Jul. 22, 2022)
It’s been pretty clear for 20 years—since City of Cotati v. Cashman, 9 Cal. 4th 69, 80-81 (2002)— that, under the anti-SLAPP statute, a claim does not “arise from” another lawsuit simply because the claim is filed in alleged retaliation for the filing of the first suit. “Arising from” doesn’t mean “motivated by.” It means that the filing of first lawsuit itself must make up at least one element of the second. The defendant in this case apparently didn’t get the memo. Not sure why this was published.
Tanscon Fin., Inc. v, Reid & Hellyer, APC, No. E078728 (D4d2 Jul. 22, 2022)
Both of the general sanctions statutes—Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128.5 and 128.7—require the movant to serve the motion on party against whom sanctions are sought and then wait 21 days before filing the motion. That time is extended by two days for email service. § 1010.6(a)(4)(B). So that means the motion can’t be granted unless it is served after the 23rd day. Here, the motion was served on the 23rd day. So no sanctions for you!
No comments:
Post a Comment