Lefebvre v. Lefebvre
199 Cal. App. 4th 696
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Lefebvre sued Alice Lefebvre and Nancy Toothman for malicious prosecution and related claims.
- Alice and Toothman moved to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, § 425.16, which the trial court denied.
- Facts allege Alice and Toothman conspired to file false criminal charges against Lefebvre, including a false report to police on Aug. 17, 2005.
- A sheriff’s investigation led to a criminal case charging Lefebvre with making a criminal threat; Lefebvre was acquitted.
- The jury foreperson criticized the investigation and the court later found Lefebvre factually innocent under Penal Code § 851.8.
- Lefebvre filed state-law claims (malicious prosecution, false arrest, etc.) after federal action was dismissed and left to state court; Alice and Toothman challenged under § 425.16.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does anti-SLAPP apply to false police-report conduct | Lefebvre argues the false report is protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. | Alice argues the report is not protected; it is illegal and not within § 425.16. | False report not protected; anti-SLAPP not implicated. |
| Does Civil Code § 47 privilege render the activity protected under anti-SLAPP | Lefebvre contends privilege may shield conduct within anti-SLAPP analysis. | Alice maintains privilege could render the report protected. | Privilege does not render the initial activity protected under § 425.16. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (litigation privilege not identical to anti-SLAPP protections; prohibits some liability but not all anti-SLAPP applicability)
- Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal.4th 350 (Cal. 2004) (privilege analysis in summary-judgment context; not controlling for anti-SLAPP step one)
- Wang v. Hartunian, 111 Cal.App.4th 744 (Cal. App. 2003) (privileged activity and anti-SLAPP interaction not fully decided; limited by later Flatley)
- Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP, 193 Cal.App.4th 435 (Cal. App. 2011) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework; review de novo; protects petition/free-speech activity at step one)
- Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., 42 Cal.3d 1157 (Cal. 1986) (illustrates statutory privilege analysis within broader litigation framework)
- PrediWave Corp. v. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 179 Cal.App.4th 1204 (Cal. App. 2009) (discusses de novo review and anti-SLAPP standards)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (defines the two-step anti-SLAPP analysis and probability-of-prevailing standard)
- Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP, 193 Cal.App.4th 435 (Cal. App. 2011) (reiterates that protected activity under § 425.16 requires conduct in furtherance of petition/free speech rights)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (context for constitutional rights interplay with anti-SLAPP)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (distinguishes litigation privilege from anti-SLAPP protections; not all privileged activity is protected by § 425.16)