Larry J. Hudack v. La Cresta Property Owners Association

Petitioner’s collateral attack demonstrated the judgments in a prior Riverside case were void on their face based on jurisdictional defects. Respondent did not dispute Petitioner’s claims but filed an anti-SLAPP motion. A California Court ruled that, on its face, a collateral attack is an assault on Respondent’s First Amendment Right to petition and dismissed Peti­ tioner’s complaint citing California's controversial antiSLAPP statute. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court ruling citing Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628 (1996) (“Church”) as precedent for the legal principle that claims of pro­ tected conduct rise to the level of jurisdictional signifi­ cance.

1. Is a collateral attack on void judgments, on its face, an assault on the constitutional Right to Petition under any state or federal statute?

2. Do claims of protected conduct relieve a court of its constitutional duty to rule on the issue Submitted in a collateral attack?

3. Does Church establish precedent that a collat­ eral attack is subject to strike under Califor­ nia’s controversial anti-SLAPP statute?

4. Can a California Court of Appeal review a void judgment? CR\n303f\ ! W* 3 - 330 , ?. iX. t