Steed

Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs

Bad Law
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 272·204 Cal. App. 4th 112
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 8, 2012No. B230269California4,126 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aldrich, J.

INTRODUCTION

After obtaining a writ of mandate directing California’s Department of Consumer Affairs, Veterinary Medical Board (the Board), to vacate a fine and temporary suspension of his license, Van P. Steed, DVM, a veterinarian, along with South Shore Pet Clinic of San Pedro, Inc. (collectively Steed), sued the Board, and its individual members, executive officers, enforcement *116 coordinator, attorneys, investigator, and consultants (collectively defendants) 1 alleging various tort theories of liability arising from the disciplinary proceeding. The trial court granted defendants’ special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP 2 statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). 3 In his appeal, Steed contends that the trial court erred in ruling that he failed to meet his burden to establish a probability of prevailing on his complaint because he submitted the minute order granting his petition for writ of mandate and asked the trial court to take judicial notice of his success in the administrative proceeding. We hold that in taking judicial notice of the fact that the minute order was issued granting the writ petition, the trial court properly declined to accept…

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.