California Court of Appeal

In plaintiff's suit against an insurer and its attorney for invasion of privacy and abuse of process, based on defendants' conduct in seeking discovery of plaintiff's mental health records by subpoenaing third party health care providers in preparation of insurer's defense against plaintiff's uninsured motorist claim, trial court's grant of the attorney's anti-SLAPP motion in dismissing the entire suit is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court did not err in granting the anti-SLAPP motion as the defendant-attorney carried his burden of demonstrating the acts underlying the complaint arose from protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16(b)(1), and plaintiff did not carry her burden of establishing the probability she would prevail on the complaint; 2) trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claims against the insurer, solely based on the attorney's successful anti-SLAPP motion; and 3) plaintiff has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in granting attorney's motion for attorney fees.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/15/2010
• Published 09/16/2010

Judges

• FYBEL

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William A. Kent, Stephen M. Smith