Park claim in California

2015(See Young v. Tri-City Healthcare District (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 57 [doctor’s statutory right to 9 Park’s brief on appeal actually asserts both bases—first, that his complaint is based on CSU’s decision to deny tenure and then that it is based on the lack of a fair hearing. 14 seek judicial review of administrative order of suspension did not implicate section 425.16, as “distinguished from requests for damages that are fundamentally based on alleged injury arising from such peer review activity”]; San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (

2015(See Young v. Tri-City Healthcare District (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 57 [doctor’s statutory right to 9 Park’s brief on appeal actually asserts both bases—first, that his complaint is based on CSU’s decision to deny tenure and then that it is based on the lack of a fair hearing. 14 seek judicial review of administrative order of suspension did not implicate section 425.16, as “distinguished from requests for damages that are fundamentally based on alleged injury arising from such peer review activity”]; San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (

2024(People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 153 .) Park’s challenge to the reliability of M.F.’s testimony “ ‘goes to the weight of the evidence, and not its admissibility.’ ” (People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 232 [description of victim’s devotion toward her children was admissible to support inference that she would not abruptly abandon them].) We conclude “the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting this evidence.” (Weaver, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1311 .) Because there was no error under state law, Park’s “federal constitutional claim

2024(People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 153 .) Park’s challenge to the reliability of M.F.’s testimony “ ‘goes to the weight of the evidence, and not its admissibility.’ ” (People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 232 [description of victim’s devotion toward her children was admissible to support inference that she would not abruptly abandon them].) We conclude “the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting this evidence.” (Weaver, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1311 .) Because there was no error under state law, Park’s “federal constitutional claim

2024(People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 153 .) Park’s challenge to the reliability of M.F.’s testimony “ ‘goes to the weight of the evidence, and not its admissibility.’ ” (People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 232 [description of victim’s devotion toward her children was admissible to support inference that she would not abruptly abandon them].) We conclude “the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting this evidence.” (Weaver, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1311 .) Because there was no error under state law, Park’s “federal constitutional claim

2024(People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 153 .) Park’s challenge to the reliability of M.F.’s testimony “ ‘goes to the weight of the evidence, and not its admissibility.’ ” (People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 232 [description of victim’s devotion toward her children was admissible to support inference that she would not abruptly abandon them].) We conclude “the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting this evidence.” (Weaver, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1311 .) Because there was no error under state law, Park’s “federal constitutional claim

2024(Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.2231(a) [“In any actions governed by the rules in this article . . . .”].) 6 16 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1110 .) “ ‘ “[N]ewly discovered evidence” is evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to judgment.’ (§ 1473.6, subd. (b).)” (In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1016 .) A. Timeliness of Motion As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether Park’s motion is timely.

2024(Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.2231(a) [“In any actions governed by the rules in this article . . . .”].) 6 16 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1110 .) “ ‘ “[N]ewly discovered evidence” is evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to judgment.’ (§ 1473.6, subd. (b).)” (In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1016 .) A. Timeliness of Motion As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether Park’s motion is timely.

2021Howe), Wong v. Wong (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 358 (Wong), and Long Beach Unified School Dist. v. Margaret Williams, LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 87 (Williams) and conclude that, here, the conduct complained of is Advance’s filing of the cross-complaint in the underlying lawsuit, which is an act in furtherance of Advance’s right of petition or free speech. (§ 425.16, subd. (b).) We now survey and apply those cases. 2 Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871 (Wilson) applied Park’s analysis in the context of a complaint for employment discrimination and retaliation. 7 A. RELEVANT CASE LA

2021Moss Brothers In Moss Brothers, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th 424 , Moss Brothers (the employer) sued its former employee for filing a lawsuit against Moss Brothers’ local agent rather than submitting his employment-related claims to arbitration, as required by an employment arbitration agreement.

2014(See FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1277 .) The difficulty at this point is with the element of subjective bad faith.

2008Management v. RLG, supra, 755 N.E.2d 556, 561 ; BEC Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection (2001) 256 Conn. 602 [ 775 A.2d 928, 937-938 ]; In re Tehama Market Associates (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. 2007) Order No. R5-2007-0054, p. 3 [all following Dougherty's articulation of the Dotterweich/Park analysis].) Application of these elements is simplified here because the Roscoes have provided us only with a clerk’s transcript.

2008Management v. RLG, supra, 755 N.E.2d 556, 561 ; BEC Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection (2001) 256 Conn. 602 [ 775 A.2d 928, 937-938 ]; In re Tehama Market Associates (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. 2007) Order No. R5-2007-0054, p. 3 [all following Dougherty's articulation of the Dotterweich/Park analysis].) Application of these elements is simplified here because the Roscoes have provided us only with a clerk’s transcript.

2008Management v. RLG, supra, 755 N.E.2d 556, 561 ; BEC Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection (2001) 256 Conn. 602 [ 775 A.2d 928, 937-938 ]; In re Tehama Market Associates (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. 2007) Order No. R5-2007-0054, p. 3 [all following Dougherty's articulation of the Dotterweich/Park analysis].) Application of these elements is simplified here because the Roscoes have provided us only with a clerk’s transcript.

2008Management v. RLG, supra, 755 N.E.2d 556, 561 ; BEC Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection (2001) 256 Conn. 602 [ 775 A.2d 928, 937-938 ]; In re Tehama Market Associates (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. 2007) Order No. R5-2007-0054, p. 3 [all following Dougherty's articulation of the Dotterweich/Park analysis].) Application of these elements is simplified here because the Roscoes have provided us only with a clerk’s transcript.

1997In Rancho Santa Paula Mobilehome Park, Ltd. v. Evans (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1139 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 ], for example, the court held a park rule prohibiting subleasing, adopted after the defendant homeowner entered into her lease, could not be enforced against her.

1997In Rancho Santa Paula Mobilehome Park, Ltd. v. Evans (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1139 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 ], for example, the court held a park rule prohibiting subleasing, adopted after the defendant homeowner entered into her lease, could not be enforced against her.

1995(Mercer, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 167; McCauley v. City of San Diego, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 990 .) Absolute immunity is the rule, “so long as the public entity’s conduct does not amount to negligence in creating or exacerbating the degree of danger normally associated with a natural condition.” (McCauley, supra, at pp. 990-991 , italics added.) Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing leave to amend to allege that Gaviota had placed signs in the park warning of snakes and ticks.

1943Co., 103 Cal. 614, 617 [ 37 P. 750 , 42 Am.St.Rep. 149 ]; Rose v. State of California, 19 Cal.2d 713, 737, 744 [ 123 P.2d 505 ]; People v. Gianni, 130 Cal.App. 584, 586 [ 20 P.2d 87 ]; City of Stockton v. Marengo, 137 Cal.App. 760 [ 31 P.2d 467 ]; Levee Dist.

1943Co., 103 Cal. 614, 617 [ 37 P. 750 , 42 Am.St.Rep. 149 ]; Rose v. State of California, 19 Cal.2d 713, 737, 744 [ 123 P.2d 505 ]; People v. Gianni, 130 Cal.App. 584, 586 [ 20 P.2d 87 ]; City of Stockton v. Marengo, 137 Cal.App. 760 [ 31 P.2d 467 ]; Levee Dist.