Win: Court of Appeal affirms denial of anti-SLAPP motion. Defendant's prelitigation communication is not protected speech.
/Salvato Boufadel successfully defended an appeal of the trial court's order denying the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the defendants' prelitigation communication was not protected activity and was not protected by the litigation privilege.
Natalie Clark (Clark) and Freya Holdings LLC (Freya) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike the operative complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. We conclude Clark did not meet her burden of demonstrating the conduct forming the basis of the underlying complaint involved protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16. Accordingly, we affirm. reversed a $3,200,000 default judgment entered more than seven years earlier that was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in a published decision. ***
We conclude the evidence in the record does not establish Clark imminently intended to commence litigation against Helix for its alleged breach of contracts with the Merchant LLCs (she never did), or that Helix was seriously contemplating suing Clark at the time she sent the January 28 email. At most, the record established Clark anticipated a potential for litigation. Thus, Clark failed to meet her threshold burden to show her conduct fell within the ambit of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2). The trial court, therefore, properly denied Clark’s special motion to strike.