Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management Corp. (2022)

Citation: Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management Corp. (2022)
Parent Document: Alfaro v. Waterhouse Management Corp. (2022)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2022-08-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7854145/alfaro-v-waterhouse-management-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,079 chars

12
flow of unambiguous case law in the past decade, any reasonable
attorney should be aware that a . . . dispute that simply mentions
incidental protected activity is not subject to the anti-SLAPP
statute.” (Baharian-Mehr v. Smith (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 265,
275.)
                            A Plea for Calm
       At the trial level and here on appeal, the parties’ “scorched
earth” postures exude acrimony: There have already been two
appeals from anti-SLAPP rulings. We are hopeful that the law
and motion wars will cease. The case should be settled or be
tried.
                              Disposition
       The orders denying appellants’ special motion to strike the
eleventh cause of action and imposing sanctions of $8,750 for
making a frivolous motion are affirmed. Respondents shall
recover their costs on appeal.
       CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. YEGAN, J.
We concur: GILBERT, P. J. PERREN, J. 13
                   Timothy J. Staffel, Judge Superior Court County of Santa Barbara ______________________________ James P. Ballantine, for Defendants and Appellants.

Other Sections in This Document (17)

Full Text