201 Cal. App. 4th 127
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Attorney Randolph filed affidavits in Zimbabwe to aid Galante's late-appeal application, aiming to influence the Los Angeles case.
- Zimbabwe writ of arrest against Topaz and parents was mooted by later findings; Zimbabwe court ultimately discharged the writ and ordered costs to Topaz.
- Topaz filed a Los Angeles complaint alleging malicious prosecution, etc., based on Randolph's affidavits.
- Los Angeles trial court found no probable cause for the writ; jury verdict favored Galante but was later reversed on appeal as internally inconsistent.
- Topaz amended to add malicious-prosecution claim against Randolph; anti-SLAPP motion filed; trial court denied relying on Guessous holding.
- Court holds the Zimbabwe affidavits are protected as writings connected to judicial proceedings and reverses denial of the anti-SLAPP motion
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Randolph's Zimbabwe affidavits are protected activity under 425.16 | Topaz argues Guessous excludes foreign petitioning; no protection. | Randolph contends affidavits were written in connection with Los Angeles case and thus protected. | Yes; affidavits fall within writing in connection with a judicial proceeding. |
| Whether Guessous controls whether foreign petitioning is protected | Guessous defeats protection for foreign proceedings. | Guessous distinguished; issues tied to U.S. litigation. | No; Guessous does not apply to those facts; affidavits protected. |
| Whether Topaz showed probability of prevailing on malicious-prosecution claim | Topaz contends affidavits show probable cause lacking. | No evidence of probable-cause disregard; Zimbabwe record; no false statements on face. | No probability shown; motion to strike should be granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC, 179 Cal.App.4th 1177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (foreign petitioning not protected where no U.S. judicial consideration)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; protectivity threshold then probability of success)
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (independent review of applicability and merits)
- Neville v. Chudacoff, 160 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (protects statements to nonparties in connection with litigation)
- Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, 47 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (communications related to litigation fund or action)
- Healy v. Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corp., 137 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (protects communications to nonparties related to pending litigation)
- Contemporary Services Corp. v. Staff Pro, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (protects communications to third parties in litigation context)
- Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (earlier anti-SLAPP authority cited in context of protection)