By: John Baba

John Baba — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 04:06:02 +0000

I would like to see some comments on the recent First District Court of Appeal, Division 5, published decision in Wallace v. McCubbin. Here is a link to the decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1572483.html I think the analysis is spot on, especially considering its analysis of Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. I’ve been personally haunted by that decision on a number of occasions when having to deal with a plaintiff’s prong two argument for complaints with “mixed causes of action.” I personally don’t believe that there is such a thing as a “mixed cause of action.” I believe that it is a legal fiction created to account for sloppy pleading and which abandons the primary rights theory under California law. It has always been clear to me that Mann is a horrible decision that needs to be reversed. Division 5, with the help of my colleague, James Kraus, who represented the Defendants, set forth a particularly convincing argument as to why Mann needs to be overruled and how Mann’s holding, that for a “mixed cause of action,” any evidence a plaintiff presents regarding unprotected conduct can defeat an anti-SLAPP motion notwithstanding the lack of evidence supporting the claim relating to protected conduct. I believe that the recent Supreme Court decision in Oasis West Reality, LLC v. Kenneth A. Goldman, which cited approvingly to Mann, albeit not in the context of “mixed causes of action,” forced Division 5 into following the ruling of Mann as it relates to the prong two analysis in cases involving mixed causes of action. I look forward to seeing any comments which you may have related to Wallace v. McCubbin.

Comments on: CASP clients are awarded more than $80,000 in attorneys fees.

By: John Baba