Mende v. Balter CA2/7, B303860

Margie Balter died in Oct. 2017. Joni Balter (defendant) sought appointment as special administrator and filed to probate a June 7, 2016 will that left the decedent’s condominium to both Joni Balter and Roger Mende (plaintiff). Mende filed a competing petition alleging an Oct. 8, 2017 will left him the condo alone.
The probate court appointed Balter special administrator and later expanded her authority to control and maintain the condominium and handle tenancy with Mende.
Mende sued Balter in a civil action alleging negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, defamation, interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of quiet enjoyment, and quiet title—largely premised on Balter’s probate filings and conduct as special administrator.
Balter moved to strike the complaint under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16) and asserted the litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47(b)); the trial court denied the special motion to strike. The probate court later admitted the June 7, 2016 will and rejected Mende’s competing will.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the challenged claims arise from protected petitioning/litigation‑related activity and are barred by the litigation privilege; it directed the trial court to grant the anti‑SLAPP motion and determine fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mende’s claims arise from protected petition/speech under § 425.16	Mende: many acts were “outrageous” or predated Balter’s administrator role and thus are not protected; some speech may be protected but most is not	Balter: her probate petition, related statements and actions as special administrator, and the unlawful detainer precursors are litigation‑related and protected activity	Held: Claims arise from protected activity — probate filings, statements and conduct connected to settling the estate and eviction efforts are squarely within § 425.16 protection
Whether Mende can show a probability of prevailing given the litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47(b))	Mende: factual allegations support tort claims and show minimal merit despite communications being litigation‑related	Balter: communications and acts were in furtherance of litigation (probate and UD); the absolute litigation privilege bars liability regardless of malice	Held: Litigation privilege applies to the communicative acts and related conduct; Mende failed to show a probability of prevailing on claims premised on those acts
Appropriate relief after anti‑SLAPP success	Mende: (implicit) the case should proceed; sought to oppose SLAPP motion	Balter: SLAPP motion should be granted and fees awarded	Held: Reversed trial court’s denial, directed trial court to grant the special motion to strike and determine attorney fees and costs (including on appeal)

Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (clarifies two‑step anti‑SLAPP burden shifting and requirement to show probability of prevailing)
Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (application of anti‑SLAPP framework)
Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (SLAPP standard and definition of claim that ‘arises from’ protected activity)
Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (broad construction of § 425.16 and protection of litigation‑related communications)
Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (litigation privilege purpose and scope)
Action Apartment Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (pre‑litigation communications in contemplation of litigation are protected by the privilege)
Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (gravamen test — distinguish communicative vs. noncommunicative conduct for litigation privilege)
Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (litigation privilege may be a substantive defense that defeats probability of prevailing under anti‑SLAPP)
Bergstein v. Strook & Strook & Lavan LLP, 236 Cal.App.4th 793 (litigation privilege can preclude liability and defeat an anti‑SLAPP response)