Section 425
- Citation
- Section 425
- Parent Document
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-06-27
Other Sections in This Document (190)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
Full Text
601 charsWallace and Owen also argue that McCubbin and Merck lack standing to assert their anti-SLAPP motion as to the first cause of action, based on the filing of the unlawful detainer proceedings. They contend that, because McCubbin and Merck did not personally file the unlawful detainer complaint, and it is not expressly alleged that they exhorted Victor Wu to file it, the filing was not in furtherance of McCubbin and Merck’s rights of free speech and petition. Wallace and Owen did not make this standing argument in the trial court, and the argument is meritless given their allegations in this case.