California Court of Appeal

Trial court order deny defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint of plaintiffs and continuing a hearing on her motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect the act of initiating private, contractual arbitration and thus plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that plaintiff's cause of action arose from activity protected by the statute; and 2) the court did not rule on her arbitration motion and consequently no appealable order exists with respect to plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/17/2009
• Published 04/17/2009

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Lisa Haberman, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant., Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez and Darin L. Wessel, Los Angeles;  Sunderland McCutchan, Robert J. Sunderland and Joseph A. Fette, San Diego, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.