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

833 chars

The trial court's evidentiary rulings at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. (See Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-1446, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 885.) But when a trial court excludes evidence because, "even if the plaintiff's *33allegations were proven, they would not establish a cause of action," that is a legal ruling subject to de novo review. ( Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 26-28, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 [evidence excluded based on litigation privilege and parol evidence rule]; see *247Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 ["when the issue is one of law, we exercise de novo review"].) B. Sagi's Evidentiary Objections

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text