Peterson v. The Marbury Ranch Homeowners Assn
James Peterson was sued by the Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association (the Association) regarding maintenance of his home (Peterson I). Peterson then filed the instant lawsuit (Peterson II) while the Association's case was pending. Peterson II alleged numerous claims against the Association and other defendants relating to the Association's decision making and how it conducted Peterson I and claimed that case was frivolous. The Association later prevailed in Peterson I.
Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint in Peterson II under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,[1] the anti-SLAPP statute.[2] The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Peterson II arose from the Association's right to petition. The court also determined Peterson had not demonstrated the probability of prevailing on his claims. Peterson now appeals, arguing the trial court should have heard his motion to contest the legitimacy of Association elections prior to hearing the anti-SLAPP motion and further erred by granting the motion. He also argues the court should not have denied his motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, but also claims the court erred by hearing collateral matters after it had lost jurisdiction. We find Peterson's arguments are without merit and therefore affirm.
Comments on Peterson v. The Marbury Ranch Homeowners Assn