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

808 chars

Anti-SLAPP analysis under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 proceeds in two familiar steps. In the first *32step, the defendant must make " ' "a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one 'arising from' protected activity." ' " ( Barry v. State Bar of California (2017) 2 Cal.5th 318, 321, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 386 P.3d 788 ( Barry ); Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530, 52 P.3d 703 ( Navellier ).) In this context, the term " ' "protected activity" ' " refers to speech or petitioning activities. ( Barry , supra , 2 Cal.5th at p. 321, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 124, 386 P.3d 788.) If the court finds the defendant succeeds at the first step, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to " ' "demonstrate[ ] a probability of prevailing on the claim." ' " ( Ibid. )

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text