Section 425

Citation: Section 425
Parent Document: 1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2008)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2008-02-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2279577/1100-park-lane-associates-v-feldman/ ↗

Full Text

683 chars

at p. 36.) However, in Hawkins’s initial contact with the Feldmans, he asserted they were not lawfully in possession of the premises and threatened litigation. Indeed, it is these “threats” that provided one of the primary bases for the Feldmans’ cross-complaint. We disagree with the Feldmans’ assertion that litigation was not at that time “imminent.” Moreover, the cases do “not hold or suggest that a complaint must be drafted before the privilege will apply.” (Aronson v. Kinsella (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 254, 268 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 305]; see Rohde v. Wolf, at p. 36.) The Feldmans also argue that Rohde v. Wolf seems to contradict the Supreme Court’s recognition in Action Apartment

Other Sections in This Document (227)

Full Text