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
885 chars*1207We also find unconvincing our concurring and dissenting colleague’s analysis of the Mann rule. First, our colleague embraces Mann on the assumption that the Legislature enacted section 425.16 to address the problem of actual SLAPP’s—lawsuits that in their entirety are both meritless and target protected activity. Acknowledging that the Legislature ultimately did not preclude just SLAPP’s, but also causes of action that arise from protected activity, our colleague concludes that the Legislature actually intended to preclude SLAPP’s or “SLAPP cause[s] of action.” (Conc. and dis. opn. of Jones, P. J., post, at p. 1218.) A “SLAPP cause of action,” however, would not be a mixed cause of action, but a cause of action that is entirely meritless and entirely premised on protected activity. The proffered rationale therefore does not justify the Mann rule in the matter at hand.