Gandhi

Gandhi v. Dakhlallah CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 11, 2015B251185California2,484 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mosk, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Ali Dakhlallah appeals from the trial court’s order denying his special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion), which motion was filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP statute).1 The motion challenged the sole cause of action for slander per se asserted in the complaint of plaintiffs and respondents Neal Gandhi (Gandhi) and Centerpointe Therapy, Inc. (Centerpointe) (collectively, plaintiffs). Defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to rule on his evidentiary objections and in denying his anti-SLAPP motion. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

Commencing in about 1999, defendant was a licensed Certified Occupational Therapist Assistant. In about July 2007, defendant began on a part-time basis working as an employee for Gandhi and Centerpointe. Gandhi was Centerpointe’s president. In about January 2011, NDGA, Inc. dba Centerpointe, which later merged “into” Centerpointe, entered into a “very lucrative” contract with College Vista Convalescent Home (College Vista) pursuant to which Centerpointe would provide therapy and rehabilitation services to College Vista. Gandhi declared that in or about February…

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.