Takhar v. People ex rel. Feather River AQMD, No. C082021 (D3 Sept. 11, 2018)
If you respond to an enforcement action brought by your regulator by bringing a counterclaim under Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, alleging that the action constitutes waste, you’re going to have an anti-SLAPP issue. You are literally suing someone for investigating and suing you. That’s protected activity. And so long as the enforcement is colorable—it’s not, for instance, under an obviously unenforceable statute—there’s no waste, so you can’t succeed either. Which is what happened here.
Reversed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (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...
No comments:
Post a Comment