113 Cal.App.5th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- S.J.K. hired Janice Cho to represent her in dissolution and domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) proceedings against her husband, Michael K.
- Legal fees for Cho's services were paid using a joint credit card held by both Michael and S.J.
- Michael initiated credit card chargeback disputes for payments made to Cho, claiming the charges were excessive or duplicative.
- In contesting the chargebacks, Cho provided a statement to her billing vendor, MyCase, summarizing S.J.'s allegations against Michael, mirroring claims made in the DVRO and related litigation.
- Michael sued Cho for libel, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on her statements in the chargeback rebuttal.
- The trial court denied Cho’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike, finding the statements were not litigation-protected activity; Cho appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Cho’s statements in the chargeback rebuttal protected litigation activity under the anti-SLAPP statute? | Cho’s statements to a third party about payment issues are not connected to litigation and not protected. | Statements were related to underlying litigation and arise from protected acts as they mirrored case allegations. | Court found statements were indeed protected activity. |
| Did Michael demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his tort claims (libel, negligence, IIED)? | Cho’s statements were false, unprivileged, and not made with due care, causing harm. | Plaintiff failed to show lack of reasonable care and statements were privileged; no evidence of negligence or damages. | Michael failed to establish minimal merit for his claims. |
| Are the statements absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47, barring tort claims? | Statements made to nonparties (Chase) are not privileged and outside litigation context. | Litigation privilege applies broadly, including communications reasonably related to litigation to interested nonparties. | Statements were privileged, claims barred. |
| Did the trial court err in denying the anti-SLAPP motion? | The trial court correctly denied protection for non-litigation communications to a bank. | The court misapplied the law; statements related to litigation, and recipients had a substantial interest. | The trial court erred; motion to strike should be granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (explains anti-SLAPP statute's burden-shifting and purpose)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) (protected activity includes funding and prosecution of lawsuits)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (lays out the scope of the litigation privilege)
- Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal.App.4th 953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (communications in context of litigation may be protected under anti-SLAPP)