Goldfarb v. Allan
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case are all owners of small parcels of undeveloped land in an area within the City of San Diego known as East Elliott. The plaintiffs allege the defendants breached the terms of a covenant under which the property owners agreed that for a specified period of time they would negotiate collectively with any potential developer rather than attempt to pursue development opportunities separately. The plaintiffs further allege the defendants' breaches entitled them to liquidated damages under the terms of the covenant. In response to the complaint the defendants filed anti-SLAPP motions. (See Code Civ. Proc.,[1] 425.10.) The defendants argued their efforts to separately develop their parcels were protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute and that plaintiffs' claims failed as a matter of law. The trial court denied the defendants' motion. Court affirm the trial court's order.
The defendants' development activities are not protected by the anti SLAPP statute. Moreover, the record shows that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of breach of contract and that none of the defenses asserted by the defendants defeat the plaintiffs' claim as a matter of law. Hence, the defendants were not entitled to an order striking the plaintiffs' complaint.
Comments on Goldfarb v. Allan