TAMKIN v. CBS BROADCASTING INC.
Filed 3/1/11
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
SCOTT TAMKIN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CBS BROADCASTING, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B221057 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC414332) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Solner, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
White, O'Connor, Fink & Brenner, Andrew M. White, David E. Fink, and Tami Kameda, for Defendants and Appellants.
Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc., Anthony Michael Glassman, and Rebecca Nell Kaufman for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
__________________________________
INTRODUCTION
CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and Sarah Goldfinger (collectively defendants or appellants) appeal from the denial of their special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, also known as the anti-SLAPP statute.[1] After independently reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the anti-SLAPP motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant the anti-SLAPP motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2005, Goldfinger met Scott and Melinda Tamkin (collectively, the Tamkins, plaintiffs, or respondents) when she was in the process of buying a home. The Tamkins, married real estate agents who lived in Los Angeles, represented the seller of a home on which Goldfinger had made an offer. After Goldfinger's offer was accepted, she exercised her right to cancel the transaction because an inspection revealed the property would require extensive remediation.
Goldfinger was one of the writers for the popular CBS television show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), which is set in Las Vegas, Nevada. According to defendants, each episode of CSI is â€
Description | CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and Sarah Goldfinger (collectively defendants or appellants) appeal from the denial of their special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, also known as the anti-SLAPP statute.[1] After independently reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the anti-SLAPP motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant the anti-SLAPP motion. |
Rating |