DOWSE v. GENERAL REMODELING & CONSTRUCTION CORP., B231386. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals of California
Number: incaco20120223050
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2012
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ROTHSCHILD, J. This lawsuit arises from a dispute between a homeowner, Signe Dowse, and two general contractors, General Remodeling & Construction Corporation and A-to-Z Remodeling & Construction, Inc. (Contractors). Dowse sued Contractors for negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Contractors cross-complained for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Dowse moved to strike the cross-complaint under the SLAPP statute. She claimed t
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ROTHSCHILD, J. This lawsuit arises from a dispute between a homeowner, Signe Dowse, and two general contractors, General Remodeling & Construction Corporation and A-to-Z Remodeling & Construction, Inc. (Contractors). Dowse sued Contractors for negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Contractors cross-complained for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Dowse moved to strike the cross-complaint under the SLAPP statute. She claimed th..
More
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ROTHSCHILD, J.
This lawsuit arises from a dispute between a homeowner, Signe Dowse, and two general contractors, General Remodeling & Construction Corporation and A-to-Z Remodeling & Construction, Inc. (Contractors). Dowse sued Contractors for negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Contractors cross-complained for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Dowse moved to strike the cross-complaint under the SLAPP statute. She claimed that the cross-complaint arose from her exercise of her constitutional right of petition in filing her complaint.1 The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.
Contractors' complaint seeks to collect money allegedly owed them by Dowse for remodeling work done at her home. It contains nothing suggesting it was brought in retaliation for Dowse's suit against Contractors. It does not follow that because Contractors' suit came after Dowse's suit, Contractors' suit "arose from" Dowse's suit. (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 77.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondents are awarded costs on appeal.
MALLANO, P. J. and JOHNSON, J., concurs.
FootNotes
1. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1), states in relevant part: "A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike. . . ."
Source: Leagle
