Legal Opinion
Daniell v. Riverside Partners I, L.P.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 14, 2012No. E052072PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1295Opinion
RICHLI, Acting P. J.
Anand L. Daniell filed this action for malicious prosecution based on an unlawful detainer allegedly filed against him by the previous owner of his apartment complex and by the previous property manager. The defendants in this action include the alleged current owners and current property manager, who Daniell claims are liable as successors in interest.
The current owners and the current property manager brought special motions to strike (SLAPP motions) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the SLAPP Act). The trial court granted the motions. It ruled that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977
- Rusheen v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Ludwig v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lennar Homes of California, Inc. v. StephensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Pequignot v. Vincent CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2013