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/ ↗

Full Text

1,280 chars

However, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ criticism of the rule articulated in Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 215] (Mann), and decline to join their offer of an alternative to what I view as the long-established prong-two analysis expressed by Mann and more recently by our Supreme Court in Oasis West Realty v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811 [124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115] (Oasis). My colleagues posit that “the question arises whether the plaintiff can satisfy this [prong two] burden by showing it could prevail based on any of the allegations underlying the cause of action, or whether the plaintiff must show it could prevail based on the allegations of protected activity alone.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1195.) I view it as settled law that a plaintiff can satisfy his burden by showing-he can prevail on any of the allegations underlying the cause of action and so I cannot join the majority’s view that a plaintiff “basing liability on both protected activity and unprotected activity should have to establish a probability of prevailing as to his or her attack on the activity the statute was designed to protect—protected activity—nothing more than that, and nothing less.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1199.)

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text