Kenne v. Stennis
230 Cal. App. 4th 953
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Kenne sued Stennis and Hatter, challenging conduct tied to service of process and two civil harassment petitions.
- Defendants moved to strike under CCP § 425.16; trial court denied on some claims and granted on others.
- Alleged facts include a service incident at defendants' home, a dropped service package, and a policeman's involvement.
- Hatter and Stennis allegedly filed false police reports and two civil harassment petitions, one yielding a 23-day TRO.
- Plaintiff asserted conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, plus libel and slander and abuse of process.
- Appellate court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded to enter a new order striking all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do claims arise from protected activity under § 425.16? | Kenne argues claims target protected petitioning conduct. | Stennis/Hatter contend conduct is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. | Yes; all six claims arise from protected petitioning activity. |
| Is conspiracy a cognizable claim when underlying torts fail? | Conspiracy should survive if underlying torts show merit. | Conspiracy requires an actual tort; without underlying torts, no liability. | Conspiracy fails as there is no viable underlying tort. |
| Can malicious prosecution lie based on § 527.6 petitions? | Malicious prosecution may be pled against filing of petitions. | Siam bars malicious prosecution based on unsuccessful § 527.6 petition. | Malicious prosecution barred; petitions cannot ground it. |
| Is intentional infliction of emotional distress barred by the litigation privilege? | IIED should be viable separate from privilege. | Communication during litigation is privileged under Civ. Code § 47(b). | IIED barred by litigation privilege. |
| Do defamation and abuse of process claims survive under privilege? | Privilege should not bar nonmaliciously framed claims. | Civil Code § 47(b) pubs shield such claims when connected to litigation. | Abuse of process, libel, and slander are barred by litigation privilege. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rohde v. Wolf, 154 Cal. App. 4th 28 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (litigation privilege informs first-step analysis under § 425.16)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (litigation privilege is absolute; protects statements related to litigation)
- Siam v. Kizilbash, 130 Cal. App. 4th 1563 (Cal. App. 4th 2005) (§ 527.6 petitions cannot ground certain torts; precludes some IIED/abuse of process claims)
- S.A. v. Maiden, 229 Cal. App. 4th 27 (Cal. App. 2014) (litigation privilege likely bars related torts in anti-SLAPP context)
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 1994) (conspiracy requires underlying tort; actionable only if tort occurs)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (absolute, broad litigation privilege for judicial proceedings)