Castleman v. Sagaser CA5
216 Cal. App. 4th 481
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Castleman et al. sue Sagaser for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of loyalty, conversion, and invasion of privacy arising from Sagaser’s alleged conduct as a former attorney of the firm.
- Sagaser resigned from the firm in October 2009 after internal disputes; he later reviewed confidential firm documents at home on Oct 24, 2009.
- Documents reviewed pertained to Bratton and Castleman real estate transactions; Bratton and related entities were clients of the firm.
- Bratton v. Jones was filed March 25, 2010, alleging defrauding Bratton of ownership interests and other misconduct; Sagaser communicated with Georgeson and Bratton regarding Bratton’s action.
- Respondents allege Sagaser used confidential information to aid Bratton against respondents and to draft Bratton’s complaint; Sagaser disputes wrongdoing and asserts potential privilege.
- Sagaser filed an anti-SLAPP motion under § 425.16; trial court denied, holding claims did not arise from protected speech or petitioning activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do respondents’ claims arise from protected speech or petitioning activity? | Castleman asserts claims arise from fiduciary breaches, not protected activity. | Sagaser argues his communications and deposition relate to protected litigation activity. | No; claims arise from fiduciary breaches, not protected activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, 123 Cal.App.4th 1179 (Cal. App. 2004) (breach of loyalty not arising from protected activity)
- Freeman v. Schack, 154 Cal.App.4th 719 (Cal. App. 2007) (breach of loyalty not predicated on protected litigation activity)
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, 171 Cal.App.4th 1617 (Cal. App. 2009) (conflict of interest not based on protected activity)
- Coretronic Corp. v. Cozen O’Connor, 192 Cal.App.4th 1381 (Cal. App. 2011) (analyze gravamen of claims for anti-SLAPP first prong)
- Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 1264 (Cal. App. 2009) (fiduciary-duty claims not arising from protected activity)
- Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal. App. 2001) (distinguishes confidential disclosures within anti-SLAPP context)