DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 425

Citation
Section 425
Parent Document
Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2011-06-27
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810370/wallace-v-mccubbin/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

677 chars 
Akin to Birkner and Feldman, and unlike DFEH and the other cases on which Wallace and Owen rely, a three-day notice and an unlawful detainer action were the bases of Wallace and Owen’s first and 13th causes of action. These alleged acts did not merely precede or trigger the lawsuit by Wallace and Owen; nor were these acts alleged solely as evidence of other wrongdoing that was the actual basis of the lawsuit. (See Delois v. Barrett Block Partners (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 940, 953-955 [99 Cal.Rptr.3d 609] [distinguishing Marlin and Clark from Birkner and Feldman].)12 For purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute, the first and 13th causes of action arose from protected activity.