KUNYSZ

KUNYSZ v. Sandler

Good Law
146 Cal. App. 4th 1540·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 89·2007 Daily Journal DAR 1158·53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 779·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 947
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2007G037226California929 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. (Subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Almost 10 months after an initial motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute was denied, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to section 1008, subdivision (b), arguing new facts and law. Based on the provision of the anti-SLAPP statute requiring motions to strike to be filed within 60 days of the complaint, or at a time the court deems proper discretion, the trial court denied the motion. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

I

FACTS

We review the facts very briefly, as they are not directly pertinent to the procedural issue that governs this appeal. Homeowner Stephen Sandler hired contractor Paul Kunysz IV to complete certain work on his home. Disputes arose, and Sandler sued Kunysz. In June 2005, at the conclusion of closing statements in that case, Kunysz served Sandler with the initial complaint in this action. Kunysz alleged that while trial in the underlying action was ongoing, Sandler made calls to individuals for whom Kunysz had…

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.