Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)

Citation: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Parent Document: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810131/morrison-v-vineyard-creek-lp/ ↗

Full Text

884 chars

As applied here, Feldman teaches that the statements by Vineyard Creek’s attorney are not a valid basis for Morrison’s antiretaliation claim under Civil Code section 1942.5. Morrison had explicitly premised her claim on Breithaupt’s statements in his January and February letters, which threatened to bring legal action for the purpose of enforcing the lease provision at issue or, in Morrison’s view, to evict her. These statements were plainly communications in furtherance of the object of the contemplated litigation. (See Birkner v. Lam (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 282-283 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190] [landlord’s service of notice terminating a tenancy, and his refusal to rescind it even after the tenants informed him they constituted a protected household due to their age or disability and length of tenancy, constituted petitioning activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute].)10

Other Sections in This Document (83)

Full Text