Phan v. Rutledge
Filed 9/10/10 Phan v. Rutledge CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
CU PHAN,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
SEAN ALAN RUTLEDGE, et al.,
Defendants and
Appellants.
G042983
(Super. Ct.
No. 30-2009-00180152)
O P I N I O
N
Appeal from an order of
the Superior Court
of Orange
County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. Affirmed.
Venable, Dan Chammas,
and Noah Steinsapir for Defendant and Appellant Sean Alan Rutledge.
Lakeshore
Law Center,
Jeffrey Wilens; Spencer Law Firm, and Jeffrey Spencer for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
*
* *
Defendant
Sean Alan Rutledge appeals from the denial of his special motion to strike the
complaint of plaintiff Cu Phan under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16
(section 425.16 or the anti-SLAPP statute).[1] Because plaintiff established a probability
of prevailing on his claim (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), we affirm the court's
order denying defendant's anti-SLAPP motion.[2]
FACTS
In September 2009,
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
for violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et
seq.) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1770 et
seq.). The lawsuit was pleaded as a
class action on behalf of â€
| Description | Defendant Sean Alan Rutledge appeals from the denial of his special motion to strike the complaint of plaintiff Cu Phan under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16 or the anti-SLAPP statute). Because plaintiff established a probability of prevailing on his claim (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)), we affirm the court's order denying defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. |
| Rating |
