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
756 charsLastly, we address Wallace and Owen’s primary argument: that their first and 13th causes of action, and their complaint as a whole, are not really about the three-day notice or the unlawful detainer action at all, but about “discrimination.” In the nomenclature of the anti-SLAPP statute, they contend the *1189first and 13th causes of action arise generally from unlawful discriminatory efforts to oust them from the premises, rather than from the termination notice, unlawful detainer, or any other particular act in itself. As we shall see, respondents’ contention is inconsistent with the allegations of their complaint; it is also based on a misconception of the anti-SLAPP statute and case law.8 a. Wallace and Owen did not allege discriminatory acts