Schroeder

Schroeder v. Irvine City Council

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 330·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 2493·2002 Daily Journal DAR 3426·97 Cal. App. 4th 174·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2832
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 2002D038976California8,237 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDonald, J.

Appellant Michael J. Schroeder filed this action against the City of Irvine (City), its city council, and four city council members (together respondents) seeking a declaration that respondents’ Vote 2000 program was an illegal expenditure of public funds. Schroeder sought an injunction barring further expenditures on the Vote 2000 program and an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a requiring the four council members to reimburse City for all City expenditures made for the Vote 2000 program. Respondents moved to dismiss the action under the so-called anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16). The trial court applied section 425.16 to Schroeder’s lawsuit, concluded he had not shown likelihood of success on the merits, granted the motion to dismiss, and awarded attorney fees to respondents.

Schroeder argues the court erred by denying him the opportunity to conduct discovery before ruling on the motion, by concluding he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and by awarding attorney fees.

I

Factual Background

A. The Vote 2000 Program

In November 1999 City authorized funding for the Vote 2000 program, a multifaceted effort to increase voter registration and…

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.