California Court of Appeal

Trial court's decision granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' anti-SLAPP motion to strike defendant's cross-complaint alleging plaintiffs committed slander, trade libel, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage by making certain statements to defendants' potential tenants and construction contractors regarding plaintiffs' suit to abate a public nuisance -- alleged acts of prostitution at several massage establishments and the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries at defendant's commercial property, is affirmed in part; and reversed in part, where: 1) defendant's cross-complaint is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion as to all plaintiffs; 2) defendant does not have a probability of prevailing against Nichols, Shank, or Bouwens-Killeen and the anti-SLAPP motion must be granted in its entirety as to these three cross-defendants; 3) defendant did not meet his burden of proving a probability of prevailing with regard to Ashabi's alleged statement because he made no showing the statement was false; and 4) plaintiffs failed to establish that Lee's statements were protected by the litigation privilege, or that prosecutorial immunity or governmental immunities for misrepresentations applied.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/12/2013
• Published 03/12/2013

Judges

• IKOLA

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel