|
3549 Allegations that a defendant who levied on a judgment in violation of a stay did so to cause financial harm that would dissuade plaintiff from appealing the judgment coupled with evidence that the stay had been issued by a trial court in the presence of defendant's representative were sufficient to justify the inference that defendant acted with an ulterior motive, and to show plaintiff's ability to establish a prima facie case of abuse of process sufficient to defeat an antiSLAPP motion.CitationDRUM v BLEAU, FOX & ASSOC (Abuse of Process) 107 CA4 1009 [See: CCP 425.16; CivC 47; Brown v Kennard 94 CA4 40, T/AT 1/02; O'Keefe v Kompa 84 CA4 130, T/AT 11/00; Merlet v Rizzo 64 CA4 53 T/AT 6/98; Vacanti v SCIF 24 C4 800, T/AT 2/01]
|
|
