Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)

Citation: Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Parent Document: Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2012-11-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5811531/oviedo-v-windsor-twelve-properties-llc/ ↗

Full Text

936 chars

“Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1289-1290 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 873], does state to the contrary. We note that Salma has not been followed by any other published decision, and that every other case holds to the contrary. We disagree with Salma, as apparently does the leading practical treatise: ‘Comment: The anti-SLAPP statute should be interpreted to allow the court to consider the “pleadings” in determining the nature of the “cause of action”—i.e., whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies. But affidavits stating evidentiary facts should be required to oppose the motion (because pleadings are supposed to allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts).’ (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) 1 7.1021.1, p. 7(H)-48 (rev. # 1, 2011), boldface omitted.)” (Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 474, fn. 8 [137 Cal.Rptr.3d 455].)

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text