Legal Opinion
Rudisill v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided June 5, 2019No. B289179PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLui, P. J.
*1066The trial court awarded sanctions in the form of attorney fees against Real Parties in Interest Xingyun LLC (Xingyun), 422 Grand Blvd LLC (422 Grand), 424 Grand Blvd LLC (424 Grand), and 426 Grand Blvd LLC (426 Grand) (collectively, Real Parties) for filing a frivolous motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute ( Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 ).1 The anti-SLAPP
*843motion concerned allegations in a petition for a writ of mandate (Petition) against the California Coastal Commission (Commission) and the City of Los Angeles (City) filed by several pro se petitioners.2 The Petition challenged various…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Baral v. SchnittCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.California Supreme Court · 2017
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Brubaker v. StrumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Catlin Ins. Co. v. Danko Meredith Law FirmCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family Adventures etc.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- Crittendon v. MULDROWDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
- Durkin v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.