✨✅️[MEGA] NEW SNAPCHAT LEAK | BARELY LEGAL PACK | LINK WORKING✅️✨

The Peregrine Funding court's reasoning was criticized in PrediWave Corp. v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1228. “Whether or not the Peregrine Funding court correctly applied section 425.16, the facts before us call for a different outcome.” (Robles v. Chalilpoyil, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 580.) The Peregrine Funding court concluded that plaintiffs' allegations of petitioning activity were not “merely incidental or collateral to [their] claims against Sheppard.” (Peregrine Funding, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 673.) Here, in contrast, respondent's allegations that appellant funded Partridge's lawsuit are incidental to the claim that appellant breached his duty of loyalty to a former client because he “orchestrated, directed, and facilitated the attempted forced takeover of his client's ... shares against [his client's] wishes.” Thus, unlike Peregrine Funding, respondent's cause of action is not “based in significant part on [appellant's] petitioning activity in ... litigation.” (Id., at p. 675.)