section 436 unlike motions to strike in California

2015“Where a cause of action refers to both protected and unprotected activity and a plaintiff can show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim, the cause of action is not meritless and will not be subject to the anti-SLAPP procedure.” (Id. at p. 106.) The appellate court recognized the policy underlying the anti-SLAPP statute “to encourage participation in matters of public significance by allowing a court to promptly dismiss unmeritorious actions or claims that are brought to chill another’s valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redres

2010Lastly, the court in Mann pointed out that "a defendant has other options to eliminate theories within a cause of action that lack merit or cannot be proven," such as a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 436 or a motion for summary adjudication. ( Mann, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 106 .) The fact that a defendant may have other ways of removing the allegations of protected activity from the case, however, is immaterial.

2014Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124 ; compare § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) 15 [“A cause of action against a person . . . shall be subject to a special motion to strike”] and § 436 [authorizing a court to strike “all or any part of any pleading”]; see Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187 [“section 425.16 applies only to a cause of action, not to a remedy”]; Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 162 [“A SLAPP motion must be based on a cause of action, not a prayer for relief” (capitalization o

2014Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124 ; compare § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) [“A cause of action against a person . . . shall be subject to a special motion to strike”] and § 436, subd. (b) [authorizing a court to strike “all or any part of any pleading”]; see Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187 [“section 425.16 applies only to a cause of action, not to a remedy”]; Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 162 [“A SLAPP motion must be based on a cause of action, not a prayer for relief” (capitali

2014Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124 ; compare § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) 15 [“A cause of action against a person . . . shall be subject to a special motion to strike”] and § 436 [authorizing a court to strike “all or any part of any pleading”]; see Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187 [“section 425.16 applies only to a cause of action, not to a remedy”]; Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 162 [“A SLAPP motion must be based on a cause of action, not a prayer for relief” (capitalization o

2014Brown Electrical Contractor, Inc. v. Rhino Electric Supply, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124 ; compare § 425.16, subd. (b)(1) [“A cause of action against a person . . . shall be subject to a special motion to strike”] and § 436, subd. (b) [authorizing a court to strike “all or any part of any pleading”]; see Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187 [“section 425.16 applies only to a cause of action, not to a remedy”]; Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 154, 162 [“A SLAPP motion must be based on a cause of action, not a prayer for relief” (capitali

2022(See Leibert v. Transworld Systems, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1693, 1698 [challenge to sustaining of demurrer on ground that plaintiff “failed to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies” rejected, inter alia, because plaintiff did not “seek[] reconsideration of the ruling”].) At any of these three junctures, Westbrook could have raised the argument to the trial court that he believed the court’s striking of his first amended complaint on its own motion under section 436 violated his right to due process.

2016(Milstein v. Turner (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 184, 185 ; Estate of Walters (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 797 , 798–800.) As the statutory wording makes clear, a trial court may strike the errant pleading on a motion made by a party or on its own motion. (§ 436 [the court may strike pleading “at any time in its discretion”]; Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631 [noncompliant complaint was “subject to the court’s own motion to strike under section 436, subdivision (b)”].) Here, CMSS’s cross-complaint manifestly failed to comply with the established procedural laws of this state.

2016(Milstein v. Turner (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 184, 185 ; Estate of Walters (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 797 , 798–800.) As the statutory wording makes clear, a trial court may strike the errant pleading on a motion made by a party or on its own motion. (§ 436 [the court may strike pleading “at any time in its discretion”]; Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631 [noncompliant complaint was “subject to the court’s own motion to strike under section 436, subdivision (b)”].) Here, CMSS’s cross-complaint manifestly failed to comply with the established procedural laws of this state.

2016(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 (Leader).) “[T]he reviewing court will disturb the ruling only upon a showing of a ‘ “ ‘clear case of abuse’ ” ’ and a ‘ “ ‘miscarriage of justice.’ ” ’ [Citations.] Discretion is abused only when, in its exercise, the trial court ‘ “exceed[ed] the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.” ’ [Citation.]” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave.

2010(Equilon, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 67.) The test that ordinarily would be used to determine whether HAFCI satisfied its burden is set forth in Mann : “[A] cause of action may only be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute if it arises from protected speech or petitioning activity and lacks even minimal merit. [Citation.] Where a cause of action refers to both protected and unprotected activity and a plaintiff can show a probability of prevailing on any part of its claim, the cause of action is not meritless and will not be subject to the anti-SLAPP procedure. [¶] Stated differently, the anti-S