Workman

Workman v. Colichman

Good Law
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636·33 Cal. App. 5th 1039
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 2019B285945; B288322California11,114 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Collins, J.

*1042 INTRODUCTION

In providing an example of when Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, 1 would not be applicable, one case offered this hypothetical: "Blackacre sells a house to Whiteacre, and Whiteacre sues, claiming defendant misrepresented the square footage. Blackacre brings a special motion to strike, claiming his speech involves a matter of public interest, because millions of Americans live in houses and buy and sell houses. ... [A]pplying the anti-SLAPP statute in such a case would be absurd." ( Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica International, Inc . (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 595 , 601, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 ( Consumer Justice ).)

This case is only slightly more complex than the Blackacre hypothetical. Here, *640 plaintiff Donna Sue Workman placed a house on the market for sale, found a buyer, and entered escrow. Defendants Paul Colichman and David Millbern, residents of a neighboring property, caused the sale to fall through when they told Workman's real estate agent in an email that they planned to construct an addition to their house that would interfere with the sweeping views from Workman's house. Workman sued defendants, alleging that…

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.