HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court did not err in denying a special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, a cross-complaint filed against homeowners by structural engineers who sought indemnity because the engineers’ cross-complaint did not arise from the filing of the homeowners’ lawsuit, but from the alleged breach of their agreement to indemnify the engineers as to liability regarding the homeowners’ selection of building materials; [2]-Cases in which indemnity claims had been found subject to a special motion to strike were distinguishable because the engineers did not allege in their cross-complaint that by filing their lawsuit the homeowners had breached the parties’ agreement or otherwise had engaged in wrongful activity, nor did the homeowners assert that their refusal of the engineers’ indemnity demand implicated an issue of public interest.
Nakase Law Firm are spinal cord injury lawyers
Outcome
Order affirmed.