Yang v. Tenet Healthcare Inc.
(2020, 4th District – 48 Cal.App.5th 939, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 429)
Yeager v. Holt
(2018, 3d District – 23 Cal.App.5th 450, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 693)
Yee v. Cheung
(2013, 4th District – 220 Cal.App.4th 184, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 851)
York v. Strong
(2015, 4th District – 234 Cal.App.4th 1471, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 845)
Young v. Midland
(2022, 1st District – 84 Cal.App.5th 34)
Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist.
(2012, 4th District – 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 119)
Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia
(2002, 1st District – 103 Cal.App.4th 298, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516)
Yu filed a class action on behalf of California residents against two banks for abuse of process and unfair business practice after the banks filed debt-collection actions in Virginia, their home state. The trial court sustained the banks’ demurrer to a third amended complaint but denied the banks’ concurrent anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds the latter was moot in light of the successful demurrer. The banks appealed. Both parties appealed. On appeal Yu argued that, because the anti-SLAPP motion was filed a year after the original complaint, it was untimely under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court holds that an amended complaint is a “complaint” under the anti-SLAPP statute (which requires that a special motion to strike be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint”), and, since the motion in this case was filed within 60 days of service of the third amended complaint, it was timely. In addition, the anti-SLAPP motion is no longer moot, the court concludes, in light of the court’s reversal of the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer. Nevertheless, the court affirms the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion but on the grounds that Yu’s claims “have sufficient potential merit to withstand Banks’ anti-SLAPP motion.” The case is interesting because the filing of a collection action in a distant state in effect deprives customers of the opportunity to defend themselves. Nevertheless, the court filing is a protected First Amendment activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, so only a determination that there is a likelihood the plaintiffs might prevail preserves the complaint for abuse of process.
Print This Page
The information on this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. The information here is meant to provide general information to the public.