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

648 chars

and several of the cases relied on by it, there was no breach of a confidentiality agreement or other agreement not to sue or to refrain from comment. The agreement alleged to have been breached was the Addendum (to the master lease), the validity of which was at issue in the unlawful detainer action itself. Nor can we say that the cross-complaint was “based on breach of a separate promise independent of the litigation.” (Wentland, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1494, citing ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 307.) Rather, much like Pollock v. Superior Court, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 26, and Laborde v. Aronson, supra, 92

Other Sections in This Document (227)

Full Text