Blog Home

Tag: Litigation Privilege

February 15, 2017

Argentieri v. Zukerberg 2017 WL 605313

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Argentieri v. Zukerberg 2017 WL 605313

Download Publication The First District holds a press release about a malicious prosecution action is privileged under C.C. §47(d), a fair and true report of an official proceeding, but not under C.C. § 47(b), the litigation privilege.    While a student at Harvard Mark Zukerberg answered an ad posted by Paul Ceglia to provide website […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

August 3, 2016

Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Hirsh (9th Cir. 2016) 831 F.3d 1179

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Hirsh (9th Cir. 2016) 831 F.3d 1179

Download Publication The Ninth Circuit holds a claims about post-settlement failure to disburse settlement funds and to report information to a carrier as mandated by California’s independent counsel statute do not involve protected petitioning activity and are not barred by the litigation privilege. Robert Hirsh was retained to represent Travelers’s insured as independent counsel. When […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

June 29, 2015

Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 3947116

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 3947116

Download Publication The Fourth District applies the litigation privilege to dismiss a claim a law firm received stolen goods from its clients. Bidna & Keys, APLC (“B & K”) represented Michael Reeves in a dispute between Reeves and his business partners, John Finton and Daniel Tontini. Reeves, Finton and Tontini owned Finton Construction, Inc. (“FCI”), […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

May 1, 2015

Bergstein v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 793

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Bergstein v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 793

Download Publication The Second District holds a non-client’s complaint that a law firm aided and abetted his former attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty involves constitutionally protected petitioning activity subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Despite causes of action labeled as various torts, all the conduct alleged involved communicative conduct protected by the litigation privilege. The statute […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

August 21, 2014

S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27

Download Publication  The Fourth District holds an attorney who represented a client in a domestic violence restraining order proceeding is protected by the rule that family law motions do not give rise to malicious prosecution liability; the acts were not an abuse of process; and the litigation privilege barred tort claims. S.A. physically and emotionally […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

January 6, 2014

Optional Capital v. DAS Corp. (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1388

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Optional Capital v. DAS Corp. (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1388

Download Publication The Second District holds events triggered by, but not arising from, litigation are not entitled to anti-SLAPP protection or covered by the litigation privilege.  Erica Kim, Christopher Kim, and Christopher’s wife Bora Lee (“Kim”) were fiduciaries of Optional Capital, Inc., a Korean Corporation, and principals of Alexandria Investments, Inc.  DAS Corporation (DAS) was […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

October 11, 2013

Zealous Advocacy Loses Ground

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Zealous Advocacy Loses Ground

(Reprinted from the Los Angeles – San Francisco Daily Journal, October 11, 2013) Attorneys are taught to be zealous advocates for their clients. With rare exception, an attorney’s zealous advocacy should not lead to liability to third parties. Two recent state Court of Appeal decisions demonstrate that the line between zealous advocacy and actionable attorney […]

Tags: , , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

October 3, 2013

Getfugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs, LLP 2013 WL 5492575

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Getfugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs, LLP 2013 WL 5492575

Download Publication The Second District holds the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to defamation claims premised on an attorney’s press release, because republication to a nonparticipant it is not protected by the litigation privilege.  Richard Oparil and his firm Patton Boggs, LLP represented Simon Davis and David Warnock in a RICO case against GetFugu, Inc., […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

August 16, 2013

People v. Persolve (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1267

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on People v. Persolve (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1267

Download Publication The Fifth District holds unfair practices proscribed by the Federal and California Debt Collection Acts are not protected by the litigation privilege.  Persolve, a debt collection company, purchased old, defaulted debt.  Its attorneys sent letters to debtors demanding payment, which the Kern County District Attorney charged were misleading, unlawfully threatened unavailable remedies, and […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

July 16, 2013

Malin v. Singer 2013 WL 3717056

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Malin v. Singer 2013 WL 3717056

Download Publication The Second District holds a pre-litigation demand letter was not so extreme as to constitute extortion, and claims based on the letter were subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike as protected activity.    Michael Malin and Lonnie Moore owned a restaurant with Shereene Arazm.  Arazm’s attorney Martin Singer sent Malin a demand […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates