From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peters & Freedman LLP v. McMahon

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. G037871 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)

Opinion


PETERS & FREEDMAN LLP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELIZABETH MCMAHON et al., Defendants and Appellants. G037871 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Third Division March 17, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Super. Ct. No. 05CC11632

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

IKOLA, J.

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 14, 2008, be modified as follows:

On page 2, second sentence of the last paragraph which begins, “It impliedly found the McMahons,” delete the words “impliedly” and “expressly” from the sentence, so that the sentence reads:

“It found the McMahons showed the statements arose from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and found the law firm showed a probability of prevailing on their causes of action.”

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

There is no change in the judgment.

WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., RYLAARSDAM, J.


Summaries of

Peters & Freedman LLP v. McMahon

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. G037871 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)
Case details for

Peters & Freedman LLP v. McMahon

Case Details

Full title:PETERS & FREEDMAN LLP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELIZABETH MCMAHON et…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2008

Citations

No. G037871 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)