Wallace v. McCubbin

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. California Supreme Court Strengthens Anti-SLAPP Statute in Baral v. Schnitt

    Toschi, Sidran, Collins & Doyle, APCAustin HouvenerAugust 29, 2016

    (quoting from the Court of Appeal's decision in Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90, which held the opposite of Taus.)The Court examined the Court of Appeal's decisions Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90 (anti-SLAPP motion must defeat an entire cause of action as it is pleaded in the complaint), Wallace v. McCubbin (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1169 (criticizing but affirming Mann), City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751(reading Taus and holding that allegations of protected activity may be stricken from a mixed cause of action without affecting the allegations of unprotected activity), M.F. Farming Co. v. Couch Distributing Co., Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 180(denial of anti-SLAPP motion proper since plaintiff would prevail on mixed cause of action), and Cho v. Chang (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 521(acknowledging split of authority; held that plaintiff cannot frustrate the purposes of the SLAPP statute through a pleading tactic of combining allegations of protected and nonprotected activity under the label of one cause of action).The Supreme Court rejected the suggestion that by merely citing Mann, that Oasis amounted to an implicit disapproval of Taus.

  2. California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute Untangled

    Archer NorrisGary A. WattAugust 2, 2016

    (See Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90.) Others concluded that the plaintiff must focus upon and respond to the claims of protected activity, and failure to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success as to those claims meant the SLAPP motion should be granted and those specific claims stricken. (See Wallace v. McCubbin (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1169.) In Baral v. Schnitt_ 2016 Cal. LEXIS 6383, a unanimous Court emphatically sided with Wallace and rejected Mann.As is frequently the case, Baral involved a complaint alleging protected and unprotected activity under the same cause of action.

  3. SLAPP Statute and the Mixed Cause of Action

    Archer NorrisGary WattFebruary 4, 2016

    What will the Supreme Court decide? For a cogent analysis, see Justice Henry Needham’s majority opinion inWallace v. McCubbin (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1169. As Wallace observes, allowing meritless claims based on protected activity to remain because the same cause of action is adorned with meritorious claims arising out of nonprotected activity defeats the purpose of the SLAPP statute.