Case Summary

p1613 The trial court erred by denying an anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in a case where property owners alleged that a lis pendens on their property had been wrongfully recorded because a lis pendens is a protected activity for purposes of an anti-SLAPP motion, and plaintiffs could not meet their burden of showing a probability of success on the merits.

PARK 100 INVESTMENT GROUP II v RYAN (Valid Lis Pendens) 180 CA4 795 [See CCP §425.16; Civ Code §47; Flatley v Mauro, 39 C4 299, P/AT 09/2006]