HOLDINGS: [1]-A husband’s assertion of causes of action owned equally by his wife and arising out of a transaction to which she was a party, for the purchase of a house that was itself community property, was an act in furtherance of the wife’s right of petition for purposes of an anti-SLAPP challenge under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1), to the builder’s claim against the wife seeking contractual indemnity for the costs of defending against the husband’s unsuccessful lawsuit in federal court; [2]-The anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted because the indemnity clause on which the builder’s claims were based was unconscionable under Civ. Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a), in that it entitled the builder to indemnity for defending a lawsuit regardless of the prevailing party and thus was unenforceable, which precluded the builder from showing a probability of success on the merits.

Nakase Law Firm is a trial attorney


Order affirmed.