Loanvest I. v. Utrecht CA1/3
This case comes before us for the third time. In the first appeal, we reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against Paul F. Utrecht and Utrecht & Lenvin, LLP (collectively, Utrecht) under the “anti-SLAPP” statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) on the ground that plaintiff’s malpractice complaint against Utrecht does not threaten to chill the exercise of protected First Amendment rights so that the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis was not satisfied. (Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 496.) We expressly concluded our opinion with the observation that “[t]he many reasons for which the trial court concluded that the claim lacks merit must await consideration on a motion for summary judgment or other appropriate proceedings.” (Id. at p. 505.) In the second appeal we reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for conversion and restitution against Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley, PC (Ropers), entered after sustaining Ropers’ contention that the clai
Comments on Loanvest I. v. Utrecht CA1/3