18-CIV-05639 NICK GIANNARIS VS. LAWRENCE VIOLA

NICK GIANNARIS LAWRENCE S. VIOLA
PRO/PER PRO/PER

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE BY LAWRENCE S. VIOLA TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Lawrence S. Viola’s 11-19-18 Special Motion to Strike, filed pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §425.16, directed to Plaintiff Nick Giannaris’ 10-18-18 Complaint (initially filed in May 2018 in the Santa Clara County Superior Court), is GRANTED. Defendant met his initial burden of demonstrating the Complaint arises from protected activity. Specifically, it targets Defendant’s alleged statements/actions in court in a related family law proceeding. As such, the Complaint is based on an act(s) in furtherance of Defendant’s right of petition or free speech. §425.16(e); Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 95, 113 (the anti-SLAPP statute extends to lawyers engaged in litigation-related activity); Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056.

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion and has not met his burden of demonstrating a probability of prevailing on the merits. Further, Defendant’s alleged actions are presumptively privileged. Civ. Code §47(b); Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at 115-116 (the litigation privilege protects an attorney’s actions in court for the purpose of encouraging zealous protection of the client’s interest); Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 793, 814 (“A plaintiff cannot establish a probability of prevailing if the litigation privilege precludes a defendant’s liability on the claims.”).

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.