Rudisill

Rudisill v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n

Good Law
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840·35 Cal. App. 5th 1062
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 5, 2019B289179California4,496 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lui, J.

*1066 The trial court awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees against Real Parties in Interest Xingyun LLC (Xingyun), 422 Grand Blvd LLC (422 Grand), 424 Grand Blvd LLC (424 Grand), and 426 Grand Blvd LLC (426 Grand) (collectively, Real Parties) for filing a frivolous motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute ( Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 ). 1 The anti-SLAPP

*843 motion concerned allegations in a petition for a writ of mandate (Petition) against the California Coastal Commission (Commission) and the City of Los Angeles (City) filed by several pro se petitioners. 2 The Petition challenged various decisions by the Commission and the City concerning a development project in Venice that allegedly involved or affected property that Real Parties owned.

In denying Real Parties' anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court concluded that (1) Real Parties could not file such a motion because the Petition asserted claims only against the Commission and the City, not against Real Parties themselves; and (2) the claims in the Petition in any event did not arise from any petitioning conduct protected under section 425.16, subdivision (e) because they challenged only official decisions…

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.