Baral v. Schnitt, No. S225090 (Cal. Aug. 1, 2016)
In first of several pending cases addressing the anti-SLAPP statute, the Supreme Court resolves a longstanding split about how to handle so-called “mixed” causes of action. That is, causes of action that implicate both protected and unprotected activity. I’ve discussed this split previously here and here, as well as in my original post on the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case.
In a cogent analysis focusing on both the text and the practicalities of the issue, the Court ultimately adopts the current minority rule.
Showing posts with label schnitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label schnitt. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Monday, March 2, 2015
A Conundrum for Mann-Hunter(s)
Baral v. Schnitt, No. B253620 (D2d1 Feb. 5, 2015)
Yet another court weighs in on the Mann rule, which says that an anti-SLAPP motion lies only to an entire cause of action. The upshot of the rule is that when a cause of action arises from both non-incidental activity protected under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(b)(1), as well as activity that is not subject to anti-SLAPP protection, the motion should be denied so long as the plaintiff can make a prima facie showing of success on any part of the claim. Over the last few years, a substantial split in appellate authority has arisen on this issue, with cogent arguments being raised on both sides.
Yet another court weighs in on the Mann rule, which says that an anti-SLAPP motion lies only to an entire cause of action. The upshot of the rule is that when a cause of action arises from both non-incidental activity protected under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(b)(1), as well as activity that is not subject to anti-SLAPP protection, the motion should be denied so long as the plaintiff can make a prima facie showing of success on any part of the claim. Over the last few years, a substantial split in appellate authority has arisen on this issue, with cogent arguments being raised on both sides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)