Holland v. Jones
148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 550
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Holland filed a libel complaint against his ex-wife Jones over statements in a declaration in their dissolution proceeding.
- Trial court granted Jones’s anti-SLAPP special motion to strike as based on the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, §47, subd. (b)).
- Holland sought reconsideration; Jones moved for attorney fees as prevailing defendant; court denied reconsideration, vacated, treated as demurrer, sustained without leave to amend, and ruled attorney fees moot.
- Appellate division reversed, suggesting the litigation-privilege exception for dissolutions might apply because malice was alleged, potentially allowing amendment.
- The matter was transferred to the state supreme court, which reversed the appellate division, holding the exception does not apply when the statements target a party seeking relief in the dissolution proceeding.
- Remand directed for dismissal; Jones awarded appellate costs; record-augmentation motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution-privilege exception applies to statements about a party to the action | Holland: exception may apply if malice is alleged | Jones: exception does not apply because the target is a party seeking relief | No; privilege barring action; exception inapplicable to a party opponent |
| Whether the demurrer without leave to amend was proper | Holland contends amendment could cure defects | Jones argues privilege bars claim with no cure | Demurrer proper; no leave to amend viable |
| Whether the appellate division erred in applying the dissolution exception to a dissolution-declaration | Holland would expand the exception to cover party targets | Jones: exception limited to third-party assertions | Reversed; exception does not apply when the statements are about a party to the action |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacob B. v. County of Shasta, 40 Cal.4th 948 (Cal. 2007) (litigation privilege generally bars tort liability for publications in judicial proceedings)
- Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 16 Cal.App.4th 184 (Cal. App. 1993) (de novo review of demurrers following ruling; standards for pleading facts)
- City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare, 41 Cal.4th 859 (Cal. 2007) (demurrer standards; treat pleaded facts as true)
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371 (Cal. App. 1990) (burden to show amendability to cure defects)
- Wilner v. Sunset Life Ins. Co., 78 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. App. 2000) (pleading burden; amendment considerations)