California Court of Appeal

In a case in which plaintiffs sued the lawyers representing their adversaries in litigation over various financial transactions, alleging that the lawyers engaged in illegal conduct when they "solicited and received . . . confidential, privileged, and/or proprietary information" from plaintiffs' former attorney, and used that information "in devising the legal strategy to be employed" in the litigation against plaintiffs, the trial court's grant of special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statue, and awarded attorney fees to defendants is affirmed where: 1) the complaint arose from protected First Amendment activity; 2) there was insufficient evidence to show defendants' conduct was illegal as a matter of law; and 3) plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing on their claims, both because the statute of limitations had run and because the litigation privilege barred plaintiffs' claims.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/08/2015
• Published 05/08/2015

Judges

• Grimes

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel