Kettler v. Gould, 22 Cal. App. 5th 593

Kettler (cross-complainant) was financial planner/trustee for Leslie Gould’s elderly parents; after their deaths he became trustee of the Gould Living Trust. Goulds accused Kettler of misappropriation and filed complaints with multiple bodies and later sued.
Cross-complaint by Kettler alleges defamation and related torts based on Goulds’ complaints to third parties (CFP Board, FINRA, Dept. of Insurance), to Kettler’s employer AXA, and public statements; sought damages and injunctions.
Goulds filed two anti-SLAPP motions; first was denied and remanded after Baral to parse mixed protected/unprotected allegations. On remand they moved to strike allegations based on complaints to specified bodies and communications to AXA.
Trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion as to FINRA and Dept. of Insurance (treated as protected/official proceedings) but denied it as to complaints to the CFP Board and communications to AXA (finding CFP Board not a public agency/issue and litigation privilege inapplicable to AXA communications).
The Court of Appeal affirmed: CFP Board complaints are not "official proceedings" or public-interest forum protected by § 425.16, and the litigation privilege does not cover the AXA communications because they were not made in furtherance of litigation nor when litigation was under serious consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kettler)	Defendant's Argument (Goulds)	Held
Whether complaint to CFP Board is protected under anti‑SLAPP (§425.16) as an official proceeding or public forum	CFP Board complaint is protected speech because CFP Board publishes disciplinary actions and has public-facing functions	CFP Board complaint is protected as an official/quasi‑judicial or public‑forum communication	Held: Not protected. CFP Board is a private certification body, not an "official proceeding authorized by law," and the complaint wasn’t made in a public forum or on a public‑interest topic
Whether communications to AXA are privileged/litigative (Civil Code §47(b)) and thus protected by anti‑SLAPP	Communications to AXA were prelitigation statements connected to later probate and civil suits and therefore absolutely privileged	Communications were in furtherance of litigation and relate logically to subsequent lawsuits	Held: Not privileged. Communications lacked threats/demands and weren’t made when litigation was under serious consideration or to achieve the objects of litigation; privilege doesn’t apply

Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarifies anti‑SLAPP treatment of mixed claims and two‑step test)
Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (hospital peer review can be "official proceeding authorized by law")
Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (relationship between anti‑SLAPP and litigation privilege)
Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (elements of litigation privilege; communications must further objects of litigation)
Action Apartment Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (prelitigation privilege requires litigation be under serious consideration)
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (websites can be public forums for anti‑SLAPP purposes)
Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, 129 Cal.App.4th 719 (statements to industry regulator can implicate public interest when conduct affects broad market)