Hanyecz

Paul for Council v. Hanyecz

Caution
102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 6·2001 Daily Journal DAR 233·85 Cal. App. 4th 1356·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 220
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 2001B140077California4,373 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

In this appeal, plaintiff challenges the determination of the trial court that plaintiff’s suit is what is commonly known as a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation [Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (section 425.16)]). Based on such determination, the trial court struck plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed the suit when plaintiff failed to establish a probability of success on his claims. Thereafter, defendants, who are Ricki Hanyecz, Michael Hanyecz, and Sima Katzir, moved for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The court granted defendants’ motion, and plaintiff challenges that ruling as well.

We find the trial court erred when it (1) ruled this is a SLAPP suit, and then (2) required plaintiff, upon pain of dismissal, to demonstrate the probability of the suit’s success. We reach this conclusion because the record demonstrates defendants were not engaged in a valid exercise of their constitutional rights of freedom of speech or petition for redress of grievances. We thus conclude this suit should not have been dismissed. Given our conclusion, it necessarily follows that defendants were not entitled to an award of costs and attorney’s fees.

Background…

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.