legal news


Register | Forgot Password

WITTE v. KAUFMAN Part II

WITTE v. KAUFMAN Part II
08:07:2006

WITTE v. KAUFMAN


Filed 8/1/06





CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*




COPY



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA




THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT




(Sacramento)


----








THOMAS WITTE,


Plaintiff and Appellant,


v.


JAMES KAUFMAN et al.,


Defendants and Respondents.



C049472



(Super. Ct. No. 04AS03863)





Story Continue from Part I ……..



This argument is specious. The question under the anti-SLAPP statute is whether the current lawsuit stems from protected activity. It makes no difference that the protected activity was completed. A moving defendant need not demonstrate the plaintiff intended to chill petition or free speech rights or that the action has that effect. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88.) If a suit is permitted based on past protected conduct, future protected conduct would be chilled. (See Vogel v. Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)


V


Probability of Prevailing


Once the defendant establishes the case involves an exercise of the right of petition or free speech, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability of prevailing. To meet this burden, the plaintiff â€





Description Where suit against law firm and individual attorney was stricken pursuant to anti-SLAPP motion. Law firm was represented by three of its own attorneys, firm could not recover attorney fees under anti-SLAPP statute, nor could individual attorney recover fees for work done on his own behalf. But fees could be awarded for work performed by an outside attorney retained by individual defendant as co-counsel.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale