Ludwig

Ludwig v. Superior Court

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 713·37 Cal. App. 4th 8·43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 350·43 Cal. Rptr. 350·95 Daily Journal DAR 10117
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 26, 1995E015539California9,555 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

Petitioner Glen Ludwig, defendant in the action below, seeks a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to grant his special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. We conclude that real party the City of Barstow , plaintiff below, has failed to show a “probability” of success on the merits within the scope of the statute, and that the trial court therefore erred in denying Ludwig’s motion. We will grant the relief prayed.

Statement of the Case

In a nutshell, petitioner Ludwig wishes, or has wished, to develop a discount mall in or near the Cities of Hesperia or Adelanto, and has taken at least preliminary steps to do so. Barstow, in turn, hoped to attract a discount mall of its own. Due to the geographic proximity of the locations, and their situation along the same transportation corridor, it would be economically advantageous for either mall not to face competition from the other. As a result, Ludwig, who apparently had the initial edge, was naturally concerned when the prospect of a competing mall in Barstow arose. As a result, Ludwig took certain actions which became the subject of this litigation.

Barstow’s first amended complaint sets…

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.