California Court of Appeal

The trial court erred in failing to strike plaintiff husband's cause of action for breach of contract pursuant to defendant wife's special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, where: 1) because plaintiff seeks to impose liability on Louise for having made statements to the internal affairs investigators and in her family court papers, i.e. engaging in protected activity, plaintiff's action is based on that activity and comes within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) the litigation privilege should apply in this case to bar plaintiff‘s breach of contract claim, and thus, defendant has established a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/07/2013
• Published 03/07/2013

Judges

• POLLAK

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel