|
3404 A claim filed in response to, or in retaliation for, threatened or actual litigation is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute merely because it is an oppressive litigation tactic or chills constitutional rights, but only if the act of defendant that underlies plaintiff’s cause of action was in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech. CitationCITY OF COTATI v CASHMAN (Abstention SLAPP) 29 C4 69 [See: City of Cotati v Cashman (RevGrtd) 90 CA4 796, T/AT 9/01; Briggs v Eden Council 19 C4 1106, T/AT 2/99; Kajima v City of LA 95 CA4 921, E/AT 3/02]
|
|
