Case Number: 19SMCV00655 Hearing Date: February 06, 2020 Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING

The Law Offices of Paul N. Philips v. David P. Rudich et al., Case No. 19SMCV00655

Hearing Date: February 6, 2019

Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion to First Amended Complaint (Cal. Civ. Code §425.16)

Plaintiff and defendants law firms/attorneys entered into a fee sharing agreement related to a copyright lawsuit, which concluded in 2018. Plaintiff alleges defendants seek more fees than they are entitled to and engaged in a campaign to damage plaintiff’s professional brand, making false representations to plaintiff’s clients, former clients and other professionals.

First Prong – Protected Activity

“Communications preparatory to or in anticipation of bringing an action or other official proceeding” are protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 784. Even if litigation has not commenced, if a statement concerns the subject of a disputed and is made in anticipation of litigation contemplated in good faith, then the statement constitutes protected petitioning activity. Neville v. Chudacoff (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1268.

Defendants argue the allegations forming the basis of the defamation cause of action were “communications preparatory to or in anticipation of the bringing of an action or other official proceeding[.]” Motion to Strike at pg. 6. The first amended complaint argues defendants made the allegedly false representations to “[plaintiff’s] current, former, and potential client pool . . . with the intent that such statements would have a negative impact upon APLC’s ability to engage in its business.” FAC at ¶18.

Defendants do not provide specific allegations as to how such representations relate to or are necessary to prepare for anticipated litigation. That the parties were involved in a dispute over fees does not, on its own, render any and all representation made by defendants about plaintiffs protected petitioning activity. Defendants fail to establish the allegations are based on protected activity.

Defendants note in reply that defamation causes of action must identify the persons to whom an allegedly defamatory statement is made, and the FAC does not do so. The failure to identify the recipients of the alleged defamatory statements does not give rise to an anti-SLAPP motion. Because defendants fail to establish the first prong of an anti-SLAPP motion, the court need not address the second prong. DENIED.