RECENT CALIFORNIA DECISIONS

January 2006

To read this entire item of approximately 1200 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication. Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25). To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here

Fourth District Finds Statements Made During Unlawful Detainer Negotiations in Inducement of Settlement Fall within the Protection of California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
Navarro v. IHOP Properties, Inc., ___Cal.App. 4th___

On December 7, 2005, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statue should have been granted and thereby reversed and remanded a finding of the trial court. The Court of Appeal found that the franchisor’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike a fraud cause of action brought by the franchisee was appropriate as statements the former made during settlement negotiations fell within the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute, and did not fall within any exemptions delineated under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17.