California Court of Appeal

In an appeal from the judgment of the trial court striking each count alleged in a cross-complaint as protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute and awarding attorney's fees, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the cross-complaint arises from a protected activity and appellant has not shown that respondent-former employee's disclosure of certain sensitive business information to the Insurance Commissioner was illegal as a matter of law under Flatley v. Maur; and 2) appellant established a probability of prevailing on its claims for breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty, as the litigation privilege is inapplicable in an action by a former client against an attorney arising from breach of professional duties. Judgment is reversed where appellant failed to establish a probability of prevailing on two other of its claims.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/30/2011
• Published 08/30/2011

Judges

• CROSKEY

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel