Procedural Posture

Shortly after dismissing its first complaint, plaintiff, the owner of an option to acquire a large tract of land from defendant landowner, filed a second complaint. The trial court granted an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion filed by defendants, the holder of another option to acquire land from the landowner and its owners, and dismissed the complaint against those defendants. Plaintiff appealed.

Nakase Law Firm are San Diego labor lawyers

Overview

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting the other option holder's anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court correctly determined that the anti-SLAPP motion was timely filed. Because venue was changed and the parties incorporated the rules governing changes of venue into their stipulation transferring venue, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by starting the 60-day period anew upon its notice of receipt of the case. The trial court's determination in its previous attorney fees order that plaintiff's cause of action arose from the other option holder's exercise of constitutional rights acted as a direct estoppel and precluded relitigation of that issue. Even if there was no direct estoppel, the evidence demonstrated plaintiff's cause of action against the other option holder arose from the latter's exercise of constitutional rights. Additionally, the evidence demonstrated it was unlikely plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its complaint against the other option holder and its owners. A condition precedent on plaintiff's interest in the landowner's other lands, which interest served as the basis for plaintiff's complaint, had not been satisfied.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment.

Posted by: saimkhan at 07:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.