Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)

Citation
Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Parent Document
Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2012-11-19

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text

670 chars
“Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute—i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit—is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d 703].) As respondents have not met their threshold burden of showing that appellant’s first cause of action was based on a protected activity covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, the trial court erred in finding otherwise. Because the claim does not involve protected speech or petitioning activity, we need not reach whether appellant established a probability of prevailing.