How the mighty have fallen.
He ultimately wins today's appeal, which concerns an anti-SLAPP motion filed against him that should never have been attempted. He even gets awarded his costs on appeal.
But General Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager nonetheless doesn't enhance his reputation with the present lawsuit. Here's in part what the Court of Appeal says in footnote 3:
"It may be, as Holt claims, that the Yeagers have filed baseless litigation, but an anti-SLAPP
motion is not the right vehicle to litigate this case. The trial court pointed out at
the hearing that claim or issue preclusion might bar this suit or Holt might have a claim
for malicious prosecution. We express no view on these points, but note with disapproval
the ad hominem attacks against Yeager made by Holt in the trial court and on appeal.
“Trying to win an argument by calling your opponent names . . . only shows the paucity
of your own reasoning.” (Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court (2002) 94
Cal.App.4th 1417, 1430.) We deny Holt’s requests for judicial notice of other cases
declaring one or both of the Yeagers to be vexatious litigants, as that material was not
before the trial court when it made the order under review."
You'd hope that General Yeager would get the message on remand and drop the suit, notwithstanding winning the appeal.
Though I fear that won't be the case.
(And who knows. Maybe it's not even his fault. He's 95 years old. He was married to his wife Glennis for 45 years, until she died of ovarian cancer in 1990. He then married Victoria D'Angelo, who's 41 years younger than him, and vociferous litigation between the couple and Chuck's family promptly commenced. His wife Victoria is also a party to the present action. Victoria and Chuck are both now on the vexatious litigant list. Maybe it's all the fault of the 95-year old. Maybe not.)
