sufficiently meritorious claim in California

2019(See Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [meritorious factor may be satisfied where party “presents facts from which it can be ascertained that the [party] has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding”].) Plaintiffs argue Fireman’s Fund did not establish a meritorious defense because the motion did not attach a proposed pleading in intervention or a declaration with “evidence” showing a meritorious defense.

2018(See Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570 , 579, 122 P.2d 564 [meritorious factor may be satisfied where party "presents facts from which it can be ascertained that the [party] has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding"].) Plaintiffs argue Fireman's Fund did not establish a meritorious defense because the motion did not attach a proposed pleading in intervention or a declaration with "evidence" showing a meritorious defense.

2025(See Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment (2022) 13 Cal.5th 859 , 872 [“we may conclude a contested portion of an anti-SLAPP motion should be denied solely based on a plaintiff’s showing of merit, as a sufficiently meritorious claim cannot be struck regardless of whether it arises from activity the anti-SLAPP statute protects”].) For the remaining challenged statements—the statements on social media platforms and the oral statements to distributors—we will begin at step one.

2024(See Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment (2022) 13 Cal.5th 859 , 872 [“we may conclude a contested portion of an anti-SLAPP motion should be denied solely based on a plaintiff’s showing of merit, as a sufficiently meritorious claim cannot be struck regardless of whether it arises from activity the anti-SLAPP statute protects”].) In so concluding, the court rejected Maxon’s contention that the Schulte letter was absolutely privileged according to Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (section 47(b)).

1994He must show, in other words, “facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle [him] to a fair adversary hearing.” (In re Marriage of Park, supra, 27 Cal.3d 337, 346 ; see also Bennett v. Hibernia Bank (1956) 47 Cal.2d 540, 554 [ 305 P.2d 20 ].) I agree with the majority that father’s allegations of mother’s active concealment, making it practically impossible for father to pay the child support installments as they fell due, are relevant to establish a defense of estoppel or waiver. 3 Again, however, the relevant facts are disputed and the present record is inadequate to determin

1994He must show, in other words, “facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle [him] to a fair adversary hearing.” (In re Marriage of Park, supra, 27 Cal.3d 337, 346 ; see also Bennett v. Hibernia Bank (1956) 47 Cal.2d 540, 554 [ 305 P.2d 20 ].) I agree with the majority that father’s allegations of mother’s active concealment, making it practically impossible for father to pay the child support installments as they fell due, are relevant to establish a defense of estoppel or waiver. 3 Again, however, the relevant facts are disputed and the present record is inadequate to determin

2024Rather, [it] must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle [it] to a fair adversary hearing.’ ” (Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1246 (Mechling), quoting In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 346 (Park).) In making this determination, a court does not judge the truth or credibility of the facts presented. “[A] hearing on a motion to relieve a defendant from default is not the place or time to ascertain whether defendant really has a defense.” (First Small Business Inv.

2019Rather, [it] must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle [it] to a fair adversary hearing.” (In re Marriage of Park, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 346 .) Here, the facts are (1) plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposure occurred decades ago; (2) neither Associated nor Fireman’s Fund defended the lawsuits; and (3) plaintiffs obtained default judgments totaling several millions of dollars, without any showing of the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ injuries, nor whether Associated caused those injuries.

2024Rather, [it] must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle [it] to a fair adversary hearing.’ ” (Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1246 (Mechling), quoting In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 346 (Park).) In making this determination, a court does not judge the truth or credibility of the facts presented. “[A] hearing on a motion to relieve a defendant from default is not the place or time to ascertain whether defendant really has a defense.” (First Small Business Inv.

2023Rather, [it] must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle [it] to a fair adversary hearing.’ ” (Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1246 ; see also Gruber v. Gruber (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 529 , 532 [court analyzes the merit of a claim by accepting the claimant’s evidence as true and evaluating whether the claim is legally and factually tenable].) Here, Antich asserts claims under the FDCPA and CCRAA, alleging she paid her debt to the original creditor before it was referred to Capital for collection, and Capital should not have reported a past d

2023Rather, [it] must show facts indicating a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle [it] to a fair adversary hearing.’ ” (Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1246 ; see also Gruber v. Gruber (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 529 , 532 [court analyzes the merit of a claim by accepting the claimant’s evidence as true and evaluating whether the claim is legally and factually tenable].) Here, Antich asserts claims under the FDCPA and CCRAA, alleging she paid her debt to the original creditor before it was referred to Capital for collection, and Capital should not have reported a past d

2022(Ibid.; see generally Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding (2018) 6 Cal.5th 1, 7 [when one argument resolved a case, we did not need to discuss an alternative argument that would have led to the same result].) Considering Serova’s showing of merit, we choose this approach.

1999Loss of a Substantial Right Inmates retain the right of reasonable visitation with their children. ( In re Smith (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 956, 968-969 , 169 Cal.Rptr. 564 ; see also In re Brittany S., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1402 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 50 .) In its brief, respondent court underestimates the nature of the right that is at stake.

1999Loss of a Substantial Right Inmates retain the right of reasonable visitation with their children. ( In re Smith (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 956, 968-969 , 169 Cal.Rptr. 564 ; see also In re Brittany S., supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1402 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 50 .) In its brief, respondent court underestimates the nature of the right that is at stake.

1982Bank v. Kirk, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at p. 355; Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 788, 792 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 874 ]), and must plead “facts from which it can be ascertained that the plaintiff has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue . . . .” (Olivera v. Grace, supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. 579 ; see Turner v. Allen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 753, 758-759 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Rather than rely on these existing safeguards to prevent abuse by irresponsible or incompetent attorneys, the majority conclude that relief must be withheld from a concededly blameless plaintiff.

1982Bank v. Kirk, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at p. 355; Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 788, 792 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 874 ]), and must plead “facts from which it can be ascertained that the plaintiff has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue . . . .” (Olivera v. Grace, supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. 579 ; see Turner v. Allen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 753, 758-759 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Rather than rely on these existing safeguards to prevent abuse by irresponsible or incompetent attorneys, the majority conclude that relief must be withheld from a concededly blameless plaintiff.

1982Bank v. Kirk, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at p. 355; Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 788, 792 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 874 ]), and must plead “facts from which it can be ascertained that the plaintiff has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue . . . .” (Olivera v. Grace, supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. 579 ; see Turner v. Allen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 753, 758-759 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Rather than rely on these existing safeguards to prevent abuse by irresponsible or incompetent attorneys, the majority conclude that relief must be withheld from a concededly blameless plaintiff.

1982Bank v. Kirk, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at p. 355; Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 788, 792 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 874 ]), and must plead “facts from which it can be ascertained that the plaintiff has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue . . . .” (Olivera v. Grace, supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. 579 ; see Turner v. Allen (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 753, 758-759 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 630 ].) Rather than rely on these existing safeguards to prevent abuse by irresponsible or incompetent attorneys, the majority conclude that relief must be withheld from a concededly blameless plaintiff.

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro

1959One who seeks the intervention of equity to set aside a judgment must allege facts showing that he “has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding.” (Olivera v. Grace, 19 Cal.2d 570, 579 [ 122 P.2d 564 , 140 A.L.R 1328].) “There must be reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have emerged in a more advantageous position. ’ ’ (Hart v. Gudger, 153 Cal. App.2d 217, 220 [ 314 P.2d 549 ].) The allegations must be such as to “ warrant the court in determining that if the facts so alleged be proven, a different result would ensue.” (Huro