Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> California Civil Litigation

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Litigation

: California Civil Litigation

No Anti-SLAPP When Court Filings Were Not the Gravamen of the Complaint

ADVERTISEMENTS

Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Improperly Granted Where the Protected Activity Was Incidental to Causes of Action

Freeman v. Schack (Aug. 27, 2007, D048583, Fourth Appellate District, Division One)
21 p. opinion

The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment entered after the defendant's successful anti-SLAPP motion (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). The plaintiffs had sued the defendant, an attorney, for breach of contract, professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The motion was granted on the grounds that the actions that the plaintiffs complained of were court filings that the defendant had made on behalf of another client.

The plaintiffs, who were represented by attorney David Barry, had brought an antitrust action against a real estate sales multiple listing service. They sought to have the antitrust action certified as a class action with themselves as class representatives. Defendant Schack volunteered to help Barry with the case. Schack signed an Attorney Association and Fee Agreement in which he agreed that he had all the responsibilities toward the plaintiffs that exist in an attorney-client relationship. Barry had detailed discussions with Schack in which he disclosed confidential information, litigation strategy and work product.

Schack then filed a motion in the action on behalf of a "proposed plaintiff in-intervention", Hemphill, who he argued satisfied class representative requirements. He argued that the plaintiffs were inadequate representatives. At a settlement conference where Barry represented the plaintiffs, Schack represented Hemphill. Schack had worked out an agreement in principle with the defendants which would provide non-monetary damages for class members and $1 million in attorney's fees for Schack and his new co-counsel. Barry tried unsuccessfully to have Schack disqualified. Schack filed an new action on behalf of Hemphill and obtained preliminary approval of a settlement class that did not include the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs settled their antitrust action. They then filed this action against Schack. Schack's anti-SLAPP motion was based upon his argument that the plaintiffs' causes of action in this case were based upon his statements and writings in the antitrust case, which was a judicial proceeding.

The Court of Appeal rejected Schack's argument. Anti-SLAPP protection is available only when the cause of action is based on acts in furtherance of the defendant's right of petition. The gravamen of the plaintiffs' complaint against Schack was based on his abandonment of them as clients and his representation of a party with interests adverse to the plaintiffs'. The allegations of Schack's court filings and oral arguments were merely incidental to their causes of action. The essence of the plaintiffs' claim was that Schack had breached his duty of loyalty to them.
Justice O'Rourke wrote the opinion. Presiding Justice Nares and Justice Aaron concurred.

Full post as published by California Civil Litigation on September 08, 2007 (boomark / email).

Related Law Blog Posts

Search Blog Directory:

"Copyright and California's Anti-SLAPP Law"
43(B)log: "Copyright and California's Anti-SLAPP Law": Duncan sued defendants, including the Sierra Club, based on Thomas Cohen and Kristi Cohen?s attempts to make a film of Duncan?s book The River Why...

California Back Specialists v. Gary Rand (Cal. Ct. App. - March 6, 2008)
You don't see a plethora of cases in which attorney's fees are awarded to the non-moving party on an anti-SLAPP motion; i.e., because the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. Much less do you see that happen a lot when the party spanked is an attorney...

Chancery Interprets Anti-SLAPP Statute
In Nichols v. Lewis, 2008 WL 2253192 (Del Ch., May 29, 2008), read opinion here, the Chancery Court addressed the following issues in this opinion involving a developer who bought a farm but encountered unexpected troubles regarding the seller's duty to cooperate in post-closing matters:1) Delaware's version of the Anti-SLAPP statute (typically relating to suits by developers against local residents who oppose a particular development), and its permissive attorneys' fee-shifting provision;2) "Apparent authority" and agency law in connection with family relationships;3) Motion to Dismiss standards in light of "notice pleading" rules, along with the opportunity for amendments to the complaint; and4) Enforcement of "cooperation clauses" and "affiliates clauses" in agreements.

California Governor Signs Off On New Protections for Free Speech
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday signed Assembly Bill 2433 and filled a significant gap in protection for anonymous speech online. Authored by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian and co-sponsored by EFF, the California Anti-SLAPP Project and the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the new law allows speakers who successfully oppose the use of bogus out-of-state litigation to obtain their identities to recover attorneys' fees...

Why Did USANA get Slapped
Tracy Coenen has a nice post about the Usana lawsuit against Barry Minkow, Usana Health Sciences loses Big in Court Here is the Court Order in the Usana Lawsuit. Minkow was sued by Usana in connection with the report he released...

Court Awards Perez Hilton Nearly $85,000 in Attorneys Fees in Ronsen Suit
I previously blogged at length about Mario Lavandeira's victory under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. � 425.16) in the libel lawsuit brought against him by celebrity DJ and Lindsey Lohan pal Samantha Ronsen...

Search Blog Directory: