arrow left
arrow right
  • Joseph Englanoff vs Casey Steed(23): Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Joseph Englanoff vs Casey Steed(23): Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
						
                                

Preview

Superior Court of California, County of Merced MINUTE ORDERS Joseph Englanoff 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM vs Motion Casey Steed 20CV-01159 Date of Hearing: 07/20/2020 Heard By: Lo, Paul Location: ; Courtroom 3 Courtroom Reporter: M. Valdez Courtroom Clerk: M. George Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: The case is regularly called for hearing: - The Court has read and considered the: Special Motion to Strike The Court states its tentative ruling The Court notes that there was no request for oral argument made but there is no one appearing in court today. The Court orders: The tentative ruling is confirmed by the Court as follows: The Special Motion to Strike brought by Defendant Casey Steed is DENIED. In Flately v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 311-321, the California Supreme Court held that the Anti-Slapp statutes does not apply to Speech and Petitioning Activity that is Illegal as a matter of law and, therefore, not Constitutionally protected. Since the sole basis for the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the instant lawsuit is the alleged unlawful threat, not the opposition to the land use proposal, the Anti-Slapp statute does not apply because the speech that is the subject of the lawsuit is not Constitutionally protected. Even if the Anti-Slapp statute were to apply, Plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. While the court finds the Anti-Slapp motion to be without merit, it does not find the motion to be sufficiently frivolous as to justify an award of attoney's fees to Plaintiff. The prevailing party is directed to prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and to provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The order is to be submitted by electronic filing to Hon. Paul C. Lo. Printed: 7/20/2020 07/20/2020 Motion - 20CV-01159 Page 1 of 1