193 Cal. App. 4th 34
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- State Farm filed an unfair business practices action under Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 against Fue Lee and others following uninsured motorist claims.
- Lee and others cross-complained against State Farm and its counsel alleging abuse of process and unfair business practices based on deposition questions about ownership of chiropractic practices.
- Depositions revealed ownership of Community Family Chiropractic by a Lee–Thao partnership and Good Chiropractic by a Lee–Lysuwan partnership; no objections were raised to these questions.
- Lee moved to disqualify State Farm’s counsel and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent use of deposition information; the trial court denied both motions.
- State Farm moved to strike Lee’s cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute; the trial court granted the motion, finding no probability of prevailing on the merits.
- On appeal, Lee challenged the anti-SLAPP ruling and the denial of injunctive relief; the appellate court affirmed both decisions, awarding costs to State Farm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-SLAPP probability of prevailings | Lee argues he showed probability of prevailing on abuse of process and UEBA. | State Farm contends Lee failed to show a wrongful act or willful conduct; discovery and privilege defenses apply. | No error; Lee failed to show probability of prevailing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Group, 41 Cal.3d 782 (Cal. 1986) (ulterior motive alone insufficient; must show wrongful act)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; burden-shifting framework)
- Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist., 39 Cal.App.4th 691 (Cal. App. 1995) (failure to argue or present reasoned analysis waives issue on appeal)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (review of anti-SLAPP order is de novo)