Haberman

Century 21 Chamberlain & Associates v. Haberman

Good Law
173 Cal. App. 4th 1·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 558·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 2009G040202California2,987 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

Defendant Lisa Haberman appeals from an order (1) denying her anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint of plaintiffs Century 21 Chamberlain & Associates and David T. Chamberlain, and (2) continuing a hearing on her motion to compel arbitration. We affirm the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion and dismiss the appeal to the extent it challenges the order continuing the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration.

Resolving an issue of first impression, we hold the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect the act of initiating private contractual arbitration. The anti-SLAPP statute protects statements made in, or concerning issues under review by, a “judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.” (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(1), (2).) Private contractual arbitration is neither. It is a private alternative to a judicial proceeding. It is not an “official proceeding” because it is a nongovernmental activity not reviewable by administrative mandate or required by statute.

Haberman also purports to appeal from that portion of the order continuing a hearing on her motion to compel arbitration, but which she describes as an order denying her motion to compel…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.