Wald v. Martin CA2/6
B335960
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 16, 2025Background
- Travis Martin (appellant) was convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse and related offenses, receiving a 610-year-to-life sentence.
- The victim, P.W., her parents (the Walds), and a related corporation sued Martin for various torts stemming from his criminal conduct and an alleged "smear campaign."
- Martin countersued, alleging negligence, menacing-duress, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and defamation.
- The Walds filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Martin’s cross-complaint and were awarded attorney’s fees and costs after prevailing.
- The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion striking all claims; Martin appealed, challenging the striking of his menacing-duress claim and the award of attorney fees/costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of anti-SLAPP | Claims arose from protected activity (e.g., reports to police, testimony) | Accusations stem from non-protected conduct | Anti-SLAPP applied to negligence, IIED, and defamation; not menacing-duress |
| Menacing-duress claim | Threats to report are protected activity | Private threats to obtain money not protected | Menacing-duress is not protected by anti-SLAPP; trial court erred in striking |
| Attorney fees and costs | Full award appropriate as respondents prevailed | Reversal warranted due to partial reversal | Fee award reversed; to be recalculated post-remand |
| Amendment of cross-complaint | Denial was proper due to lack of argument | Sought to amend menacing-duress claim | Not addressed on merits, but amendment not precluded on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (definition and analysis of protected activity under anti-SLAPP)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State Univ., 2 Cal.5th 1057 (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; focus on acts forming the basis of liability)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (treatment of mixed causes of action under anti-SLAPP)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (anti-SLAPP does not protect criminal extortion, but the exception is narrow)
- Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868 (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal.5th 204 (elements of negligence in tort)
- Sanchez v. Bezos, 80 Cal.App.5th 750 (elements of defamation in California)