Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP)
Having reviewed the motion, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Mistura Smith and Naphew Shonekan (by and through his guardian, Mistura Smith) filed a Complaint against Juan Carlos Valdivia Rosales; Juana Ceja Chavez (erroneously sued as Ceja Chavez Juana); and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, alleging 2 causes of action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 25, 2021.
On July 13, 2021, Cross-Complainants filed a Cross-Complaint, seeking indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief.
On August 6, 2021, Cross-Defendant Mistura Smith filed this instant motion.
On August 20, 2021, Cross-Complainants filed an Opposition.
On August 24, 2021, Cross-Defendant filed a Reply.
Trial is set for October 7, 2022.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Cross-Defendant Smith brings the motion on the basis that the Cross-Complaint was solely intended to chill her right to petition the Court for redress. Smith conte
Hearing Date
September 02, 2021
Type
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP)
Having reviewed the motion, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Mistura Smith and Naphew Shonekan (by and through his guardian, Mistura Smith) filed a Complaint against Juan Carlos Valdivia Rosales; Juana Ceja Chavez (erroneously sued as Ceja Chavez Juana); and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, alleging 2 causes of action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 25, 2021.
On July 13, 2021, Cross-Complainants filed a Cross-Complaint, seeking indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief.
On August 6, 2021, Cross-Defendant Mistura Smith filed this instant motion.
On August 20, 2021, Cross-Complainants filed an Opposition.
On August 24, 2021, Cross-Defendant filed a Reply.
Trial is set for October 7, 2022.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Cross-Defendant Smith brings the motion on the basis that the Cross-Complaint was solely intended to chill her right to petition the Court for redress. Smith conte