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

641 chars 
In Haight Ashbury, the concurring and dissenting opinion asserted that the rule in Mann was unwise, largely because it would allow plaintiffs to end-run the anti-SLAPP statute and insulate their meritless attacks on protected activity by merely joining them with nonfnvolous allegations of unprotected activity. The majority in Haight Ashbury, however, determined that the issue should be left to “a future case where it is squarely presented for decision.” (Haight Ashbury, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1555.) That “future case” is here, as Wallace and Owen’s first and 13th causes of action are based on protected and unprotected activity.