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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239848/winslett-v-1811-27th-ave-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,001 chars

If the cause of action satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute, then it is subject to being stricken. ( Barry , supra , 2 Cal.5th at p. 321, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 386 P.3d 788.) On appeal, this court reviews a trial court's order granting an anti-SLAPP motion de novo. ( Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 698, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 451.) Thus, whether a defendant has met his or her burden under the first prong, and if so, whether a plaintiff has shown a probability of prevailing under the second prong, are both questions this court reviews independently on appeal. ( Kashian v. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 892, 906, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 576.) On de novo review, " '[w]e look at the pleadings and declarations, accepting as true the evidence that favors the plaintiff and evaluating the defendant's evidence " 'only to determine if it has defeated that submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of law.' " ' " ( Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 470, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 784.)

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text