Developments of Interest

New Cases of Interest - September 28, 2018

Banner Photo


Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2018) 26 Cal.App.5 th 54.  This is a SLAPP motion.  The issue involved a settlement agreement which had language in it that Plaintiffs and their counsel agreed to keep the terms of the agreement confidential, Plaintiff’s counsel had signed the agreement under the words “approved as to form and content” and the court held that the Plaintiff’s counsel could not be liable for breach of the confidentiality provisions to the Defendant.  The attorneys had filed a SLAPP motion to strike a multi-cause of action complaint filed against them by the Defendants in the former action.  The court found that the language relating to “approved as to form and content” was insufficient to make the attorneys parties to the settlement agreement, therefore there was no probability of prevailing against them on a cause of action for breach of contract.

Winslett v. 1811 27 th Avenue LLC (2018) 26 Cal.App.5 th 239.  This is another SLAPP case.  In this one, the landlord brought a SLAPP motion seeking to strike the tenant’s claim for retaliation and retaliatory eviction and for violation of Oakland’s eviction ordinance.  The court found the litigation privilege did not bar the tenant’s claims of retaliation and retaliatory eviction and did not prevent her from showing a probability of prevailing on those claims, and so the SLAPP motion as to those elements of the lawsuit should have been denied.

Related Attorney(s): 

No matter the scope or nature of your legal problem, our firm offers experienced, effective legal representation by professionals you know and trust.