Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018)

Citation
Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018)
Parent Document
Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2018-08-15

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text

620 chars
*245After hearing argument on the anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court granted it, striking all three of the challenged causes of action. The court ruled that these claims are based on protected activity because "the filing of unlawful detainer actions [is] protected activity," and "the gravamen of this case is ... the UD case itself." The court also ruled, as a matter of law, that the litigation privilege prevents Winslett from succeeding on any of the three claims. It overruled Sagi's evidentiary objections, except for the relevance objection, which it sustained in light of its ruling on the litigation privilege.