|
P0900 If, in opposition to a SLAPP motion, the argument is made that an amendment to the SLAPP statute excludes the suit from its coverage because it is a cause of action against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling goods or services and arising from statements or conduct that person made in the course of delivering those goods or services to an actual or potential buyer, the moving party has the burden of showing that the action is not excluded.
BRILL MEDIA v TCW GROUP (Involuntary Bankruptcy) 132 CA4 324 [See: CCP 425.16, 425.17; Brenton v Metabolife 116 CA4 679, T/AT 4/04 & P/AT 5/04]
|
|