Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Citation
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Parent Document
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2020-09-25
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4789644/reyes-v-kruger/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
- Reyes v. Kruger (2020)
Full Text
643 chars7
Appellants argued in a motion for supplemental briefing that given the “trap for
the unwary” created by the direct appealability of an order granting a motion to strike
under the anti-SLAPP statute (see Russell, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 664 (conc. opn.
of Rubin, J.)), this court should permit supplemental briefing to challenge the trial court’s
ruling on the motion for new trial, which was encompassed in the appeal from the
January 23 judgment and raised the same issues as the appeal from the anti-SLAPP order.
We granted appellants’ request to file supplemental briefing regarding issues raised in the
motion for new trial.