1150 Laurel Owners Assoc. Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B288091 (D2d3 Nov. 7, 2018)
Defendant in this limited civil case alleging a breach of a settlement agreement responded to the complaint with an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding that an anti-SLAPP motion could not be brought in limited civil. The Appellate Division granted a writ reversing that decision. And now the Court of Appeal grants a writ reversing the App. Div.
Showing posts with label 92(d). Show all posts
Showing posts with label 92(d). Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
We've Moved ....
After a two-year hiatus, 111 North Hill Street has decided to decamp for Substack. Thank you for your readership over the last twelve year...
-
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. , No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015) Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges...
-
The Rossdale Grp. v. Walton , No. H043476 (D6 Apr. 15, 2017) This is a weird and kind of narrow opinion about standing that is mostly shap...