Castillo

Castillo v. Pacheco

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 242·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 654·2007 Daily Journal DAR 5751·58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 305·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4573
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 2007B188991California3,653 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Defendants and appellants Hector Pacheco and Xóchitl Pacheco (also known as Ramos) (collectively, the Pachecos) appeal an order denying their anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), whereby the Pachecos sought to strike a nuisance complaint filed by plaintiffs and respondents Felix Castillo, Eva Castillo, Nick Adame and Connie Adame (plaintiffs).

Plaintiffs sued their neighbors, the Pachecos, alleging they were committing a nuisance by holding “large ceremonial outdoor open fire[s]” in their backyard. The Pachecos filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, contending the nuisance complaint was subject to a special motion to strike because the ceremonial fire was the core element of a religious ritual.

In this apparent case of first' impression, the essential issue presented is whether a cause of action against a person arising from an act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of free exercise of religion is subject to a special motion to strike. We conclude section 425.16 did not import wholesale the protections of the First Amendment. (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.) Protected activity…

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.